Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

For those of you that are more philosophically orientated, this is for you:

My gut feeling is that "atheism" is more than just the denial of the claim "God exists". This is justified by what I felt after deconversion, and maybe I can make that extend to an objective philosophy--

The day that I woke up and no longer believed, the one thought running through my head that now redefined the relevant part of my identity was "there is no god". This was the justifying thought for why I went from theism to atheism - the fundamental belief at my core that forced me to now call myself an atheist.

When you say "I don't believe in God", what exactly is it about "God" that you don't believe in? If we personified "God" and called him Jerry, what would you say about Jerry? "I don't believe in the person Jerry". I mean, let's get real. What exactly is it about Jerry that you're not believing? *cough* his existence *cough cough*?

Let's explore this a little further with an analogy that I think stays more true to the matter at hand than "there are X things, and we don't know if it's an even or odd number":

Say we have a closet in a mansion which was said to contain a monkey inside. The door is bolted shut and we don't have any tools to pry it open. Thus, we are all agnostics about there being a monkey inside because we will never have direct evidence to support the claim for or against. Now, if your perceived experience of this monkey is that he's mute, doesn't seem to move inside and it doesn't smell like there is a monkey in the closet, what would your belief be in terms of the claim "there is a monkey in the closet"? The "atheist" might say "I don't believe in that monkey". But given your perception of said monkey, isn't your leading thought "there is *no* monkey in that closet" which is then the justifying belief that prompts you to say "I don't believe in that monkey"? Can you not see that the simple statement "I don't believe in that monkey" on its own is actually rather useless to the point of just being a little silly?

Fast forward to a cocktail party happening at said mansion with other fellow monkey believers and monkey deniers, where you get into a conversation with a monkey believer:

Monkey Believer: "that monkey is going crazy in there I say!"
You: "Well, I have to disagree. I don't believe in that monkey."
M.B: "Oh? You don't think there's a monkey in there?"
Y: "I NEVER SAID THAT. I'm just saying I don't believe in that monkey."
M.B: "Oh... do you think the monkey is in there at least..?"
Y: "Sir, my experience with the closet leads me to disbelieve in this monkey. That is all there is to it - I simply don't believe in that monkey. I am a-monkey, full stop!"
M.B: "So you don't believe in the monkey because you have no indirect evidence of it?"
Y: "Correct!"
M.B: "Wouldn't that lead you to think there is no monkey..?"
Y: "I'm not making that claim, sir. I'm simply a-monkey."
M.B: "Well, is there or isn't there a monkey?"
Y: "Good lord... I"M NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS ABOUT THE MONKEY. I simply lack the belief in this monkey. I am A-MONKEY."
M.B: *whispers to himself* "sounds like you don't believe any monkey exists in the closet old chap." *walks away, sipping at his cocktail*.


I think the above highlights why my deconversion led me to believe the negative of theism - that there is *no* god(s). Otherwise, simply "disbelieving in God" without saying "God doesn't exist" almost makes me sound like I'm an atheist who is angry at God, and I'm merely rejecting him by saying I don't believe in him. Such an absurd statement about myself is clearly false, and undeniably false because in fact *I believe God doesn't exist* to begin with. I used to hear the monkey talk, hear movements and smell his presence, but now I've realised the closet is incredibly silent, which leads me to the sensible conclusion that there wasn't ever a monkey to begin with - or he died from starvation

To conclude, my suggestion for the term "atheism" would be: lacks the belief of the theist, and such a state can be identified as believing the opposite claim of the theist - that God doesn't exist.
After all, it's a dichotomy, and if you're not a theist, then chances are deep in the back of your mind you think deities are but the stuff of the imagination. You're just too lazy to deal with the implications of accepting you don't believe god(s) to exist.

Kudos for being intellectually honest.

---

The entire community of "atheists" who are telling you this definition is true are talking nonsense. They are either ignorant of what atheism means, or they have succumbed to convenience over rationality.

Can you tell me why, when someone's view is covered by agnosticism, they want to label themselves and others as atheists?

Oh and why is the traditional definition more rational?

Because it affirms a view, rather than a lack of one.

Typically, almost all "-isms" that define a person's intellectual state describe views they hold. Even other "-isms" like Communism, is defined as a view, and not a "lack of belief in capitalism".

This is how the English language works. This is how the world works. A rose is a rose, it's not a "lack of non-rose properties", a Ferrari is not defined as a "non-Lamborghini", and voting for candidate A is characterized by an act, not a "non-action of (non?)voting towards the non-candidate of non-choice".

The only time this silly game is played is when it comes to atheism.

There's no reason to play games. Let's get real here. Let's bring intellectual honesty into the discussion.