The Definition of "Atheism"

[LostInThought]

Athiest is a broad term that, as definded, means one who does not believe in a god. it is an inclusive term. Athiests range from agnostics to confucianists, because they do not have any belief in god. while agnostics and conficianists do not identify themselves as athiest, they are still athiest, just as a spaniard is still european.

[arX]

as definded

brokeded

[lsbskins1]

Athiest is a broad term that, as definded, means one who does not believe in a god. it is an inclusive term. Athiests range from agnostics to confucianists, because they do not have any belief in god. while agnostics and conficianists do not identify themselves as athiest, they are still athiest, just as a spaniard is still european.

Well, except I don't "not believe in a god". So, not being from Spain (or any other European country) I'm not European. I believe a god is possible, though I have no proof of his existence. I do not know. I am without knowledge, and am therefore, an agnostic.

[Night]

Well, except I don't "not believe in a god". So, not being from Spain (or any other European country) I'm not European. I believe a god is possible, though I have no proof of his existence. I do not know. I am without knowledge, and am therefore, an agnostic.

But that means you don't believe in a god...a person who doesn't know whether or not god exists does not believe in god. It's a technical but necessary thing to point out.

[Meleagar]

Once again, it really just boils down to whether or not one is being intellectually honest or not. Claiming that one simply "lacks a belief" in a thing, while concurrently ridiculing others who have that belief, or ridiculing the belief itself over and over without even hearing the evidence and/or argument for that particular claim, belies the fact that what is actually on display is a belief that gods do not exist, just as they have the belief that invisible pink unicorns do not exist.

Atheists prefer to defend neutral agnosticism instead of their actual position because their actual position is one of unsupportable faith - and they know it.

[Night]

Once again, it really just boils down to whether or not one is being intellectually honest or not. Claiming that one simply "lacks a belief" in a thing, while concurrently ridiculing others who have that belief, or ridiculing the belief itself over and over without even hearing the evidence and/or argument for that particular claim, belies the fact that what is actually on display is a belief that gods do not exist, just as they have the belief that invisible pink unicorns do not exist.

Atheists prefer to defend neutral agnosticism instead of their actual position because their actual position is one of unsupportable faith - and they know it.

What a joke. I haven't even "heard" the evidence for god? There IS no evidence for the existence of a god, or gods. And which god or gods does your "evidence" support? Does your evidence support the Greek gods, or the christian god, or the muslim god??? Which one/s?

By your definition, it is not correct to claim that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. It's the same exact logic. What is your "evidence" for the existence of god? Let me guess, you think that since the universe exists, it needed to be created? That wouldn't be true at all.

I'd love to see whatever evidence you think you have for the existence of god though, that's always interesting.

[Jack]

Once again, it really just boils down to whether or not one is being intellectually honest or not. Claiming that one simply "lacks a belief" in a thing, while concurrently ridiculing others who have that belief, or ridiculing the belief itself over and over without even hearing the evidence and/or argument for that particular claim, belies the fact that what is actually on display is a belief that gods do not exist, just as they have the belief that invisible pink unicorns do not exist.

Atheists prefer to defend neutral agnosticism instead of their actual position because their actual position is one of unsupportable faith - and they know it.

It's ironic that atheists frequently get accused here in the forum of creating their own definition of "god" and "Christianity" so that they can argue their own definition and not the definition preferred by the theists themselves while here we have a case of theists defining "atheism" so they can argue against their own definition. So either both sides of the debate are trying to be intellectually honest or neither side is.

Dictionary definitions are useful in gaining a broad understanding of a philosophical position but useless when trying to understand individual positions on a philosophical concept. Dictionaries define "Christian" in such broad terms that it is only generally applicable to each individual Christian's actual beliefs. Dictionaries lack nuances in their definitions. Not all Christian religions require baptism as a condition of salvation, not all require the celebration of the Eucharist, not all require a confession of faith, not all have a set place of worship or ministers, but some do. There is no way to make a sweeping generalization regarding what Christians believe beyond the core belief common to just about all Christian religions that Jesus was a divine being who delivered mankind from the ultimate punishment for their sins. It's foolish to think any one definition of "Christian" beyond that will apply to all Christians.

For the same reasons it's pointless to think that a dictionary definition of "atheist" accurately describes individual positions on the topic of theistic belief beyond the basic fact that atheists lack that belief. The term "atheist" says nothing about what atheists do believe or to what degree they dismiss the claims of theism. There is no more unity among atheists regarding what they do believe or to what degree they lack a belief in gods than there is among Christians regarding the need for baptism or whether speaking in tongues is necessary.

If we're going to debate individual concepts regarding theistic belief we can only do so accurately if we know what each individual believes about the subject and take their word for it that they are presenting their honest beliefs. Anything short of that is debating our own personal beliefs as to what another person believes, strawman arguments in other words.

I've posted my own stance on theism before and I'll gladly re-post it for those who haven't read it:

Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. Theism and atheism relate to belief.

Agnosticism, as defined by its creator, Thomas Henry Huxley, is similar to skepticism. It’s a means of examining reality that says, “show me”. Show me the evidence that leads to a certain conclusion, show me the process of getting from point A to point Z that supports the contention that point Z is true. Knowledge should be based on truth and truth claims should be examined skeptically/agnostically to judge their merit.

Atheism is a rejection of the beliefs of those who claim that there are or have been gods. We do not accept the explanations and substantiations offered by believers in support of their beliefs.

I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is the tool I use to examine truth claims and atheism is the conclusion I’ve reached in the matter of belief in the gods mankind has invented.

As to "ridiculing the belief itself over and over without even hearing the evidence and/or argument for that particular claim"; why would anyone suppose we haven't heard the arguments in favor of belief? Believers are hardly shy about expressing their opinions and offering the arguments they have supporting their beliefs. They've been presenting them for hundreds of years. They've published thousands of books on the topic of their beliefs. We've heard them, read them and some of us have even embraced and held them ourselves previously. A person would indeed be foolish to ridicule that with which they are unfamiliar, but that's not the case for many if not most atheists. When we ridicule theism we do it for the same reason theists ridicule atheism, because we don't agree with that philosophical position and find the arguments in favor of it unconvincing and worthy of ridicule.

[Strawman]

Atheists prefer to defend neutral agnosticism instead of their actual position because their actual position is one of unsupportable faith - and they know it.

I prefer to support the hard line. Agnosticism is, to me, a cop out. Agnosticism is lazy: "Well, I don't believe in God, but I can't prove that He actually does not exist, so maybe there actually is a God, even if I do not worship or believe in Him." Weak.

Here is how I would frame the debate:

Atheism is to be defined, not as the disbelief in gods, but as the belief that all gods are fictional. This is different than saying that gods do not exist. Homer Simpson, Dracula, and Don Quixote, all definitely exist in some way: they are fictional creations that can found in novels and TV shows. Yahweh and Jesus exist in the same way.

[lsbskins1]

But that means you don't believe in a god...a person who doesn't know whether or not god exists does not believe in god. It's a technical but necessary thing to point out.

No, it is more akin to the attitude a juror should have at the beginning of a trial. A very loooooooong trial. I suspend judgment because I know that in large measure, I am ignorant of many of the relevant facts. What I don't know, and what I perhaps might never know, have a direct bearing on what is true. And the range of possibilities are almost endless. What I suspect may be true is one thing, what is true might be a completely different thing. I accept and acknowledge that fact. It isn't lazy. At least, it is no more lazy than it is to admit that I don't know how to cure Parkinson's disease. It does not stop me from seeking an answer, it just admits that I do not HAVE one.

[Cephus]

What about deists? Pantheist? Do they not exist?

Um, deists and pantheists both believe in gods. Deists believe in a god that doesn't interact with humanity and pantheists believe everything is god. They are both theists.

[crimethinker]

It does not stop me from seeking an answer, it just admits that I do not HAVE one.

Which means you do not believe, are in a state of disbelief, and thus an atheist.

The word is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't matter if you want it applied to you or not, unless you're going to abandon the English language over the matter. It describes what you are.

You can contend the definition, I guess, and admittedly, there is a popular misconception that an atheist is "one who believes God does not exist", because the religious majority prefers to paint their opposition in terms they can understand. Can I ask, though, why are you so desperate to distance yourself from other atheists, or if you prefer, others who "do not believe in God"?

Also, a trial is an apt analogy for atheism. Innocent until proven guilty. In a state of disbelief towards one's guilt until that guilt is proven.

[lsbskins1]

I distance myself from certainty, not atheists. You can think of me as an atheist all day long if you like, I do not care and could not alter it if I did care. But why, may I ask, do you seem to need me to call myself an atheist? I don't care if you consider yourself a theist or an atheist. I will say it as plainly as I can, I choose to consider myself an agnostic because the term most accurately represents my thinking on the matter. I believe that there is an equal chance that there is some supreme being, some "prime mover", some guiding force of the universe as there is that there is not. I do not know. I am not without belief, because I believe it is possible while also believing that it is possible that no god exists...I am without knowledge, therefore...agnostic.