Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Esquilax]

Not sure I worded it like that.

But the use of agnosticism, I understood, originated with Huxley. What are you referring to exactly with your "in the beginning"?

I'm referring to when Huxley coined the term, in 1869. His very first usage of it describes a rejection of spiritual knowledge, strictly speaking, that one shouldn't proclaim certainty in things that aren't demonstrably so. So, using agnosticism as it was originally intended, it's more of a descriptor of knowledge, where atheism is one of belief, as we've been saying all along. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

For the record, I have no problem with words that change from initial usage. I'm all for it. Rather what I have a problem with is the illegitimate change of meaning. For instance, when people claim the definition they like, or they see commonly is the One True Definitiontm.

So then what's a legitimate change in definition, and who determines that? You? The people the word applies to? Common usage? It seems to me you're wanting to proclaim dictionaries the arbiter of this, but you can find some dictionaries that still label atheism as a synonym of immoral, so hey.

Besides, I think you'll find that not a one of us is claiming ours to be the one true anything, and that if pressed we're actually willing to add an ag/gnostic qualifier to the front of our chosen label in the interests of being clear. This is just a question of specifics: I don't believe in a god, which makes me an atheist, and I don't claim knowledge over that, which makes me an agnostic. Bam.

By which one makes more sense.

the claim "does not believe in God/gods" is not only too vague, because it doesn't distinguish between "belief in" versus "belief in the existence of."

Atheism usually refers to the latter, while the former refers to the irreligious, and can include agnostics, deists, pantheists, etc.

Whoop! I wouldn't usually bother responding to a response for someone else, but I can see the error here really clearly: you're assuming that the "god" in "does not believe in gods," is a specific entity, and not that set of entities that religions entitle god, which isn't true. An atheist would disbelieve in your god claim, someone else's god claim, everyone's god claim equally. It's not vague, it's both of your things it can't distinguish between: you can't believe in something without believing it exists, surely?

I'll put it like this: atheists don't believe in any gods, but agnostics can, so long as they don't proclaim to know for certain; one can be an agnostic theist, too. Deists and pantheists believe in some form of god, so they're still theistic in some stripe. That's not vague at all.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Not sure I worded it like that.

But the use of agnosticism, I understood, originated with Huxley. What are you referring to exactly with your "in the beginning"?

I'm referring to when Huxley coined the term, in 1869. His very first usage of it describes a rejection of spiritual knowledge, strictly speaking, that one shouldn't proclaim certainty in things that aren't demonstrably so. So, using agnosticism as it was originally intended, it's more of a descriptor of knowledge, where atheism is one of belief, as we've been saying all along. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

For the record, I have no problem with words that change from initial usage. I'm all for it. Rather what I have a problem with is the illegitimate change of meaning. For instance, when people claim the definition they like, or they see commonly is the One True Definitiontm.

So then what's a legitimate change in definition, and who determines that? You? The people the word applies to? Common usage? It seems to me you're wanting to proclaim dictionaries the arbiter of this, but you can find some dictionaries that still label atheism as a synonym of immoral, so hey.

Besides, I think you'll find that not a one of us is claiming ours to be the one true anything, and that if pressed we're actually willing to add an ag/gnostic qualifier to the front of our chosen label in the interests of being clear. This is just a question of specifics: I don't believe in a god, which makes me an atheist, and I don't claim knowledge over that, which makes me an agnostic. Bam.

By which one makes more sense.

the claim "does not believe in God/gods" is not only too vague, because it doesn't distinguish between "belief in" versus "belief in the existence of."

Atheism usually refers to the latter, while the former refers to the irreligious, and can include agnostics, deists, pantheists, etc.

Whoop! I wouldn't usually bother responding to a response for someone else, but I can see the error here really clearly: you're assuming that the "god" in "does not believe in gods," is a specific entity, and not that set of entities that religions entitle god, which isn't true. An atheist would disbelieve in your god claim, someone else's god claim, everyone's god claim equally. It's not vague, it's both of your things it can't distinguish between: you can't believe in something without believing it exists, surely?

I'll put it like this: atheists don't believe in any gods, but agnostics can, so long as they don't proclaim to know for certain; one can be an agnostic theist, too. Deists and pantheists believe in some form of god, so they're still theistic in some stripe. That's not vague at all.

I'm not sure Huxley's position was a flat-out rejection of spiritual knowledge, rather I think it was more nuanced than that. SEP:

Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of ‘agnostic’ in a theological context.

It seems, both by your description and the SEPs, that Huxley's view entailed that spiritual knowledge was not false or impossible. Rather, it was insufficiently certain to qualify as knowledge.

I think a vs b is the crux of the matter here.

a) A belief that God does not exist (which I and most of the sources agree with)
b) A "lack of belief" that God exists (which is commonly used on the internet)

But if nobody here claims that their definition is the one true definition, they they have to specify that the definition they are using is one particular definition. And according to one definition they are atheist-agnostics, and another, they are agnostics.

For the record, I don't believe that "does not believe in gods" refers to any specific entity.

Rather, one's belief in a God (or lack thereof) is a matter of indifference to me and amounts to irreligiosity. It's your stance on a deity's existence that determines the answer. Do you believe God does not exist, or are you not certain about whether God does or doesn't exist?

[Simon Moon]

Do you believe God does not exist, or are you not certain about whether God does or doesn't exist?

This is a false dichotomy.

One can be uncertain as to the existence and/or nonexistence of a god or gods, and still disbelieve they exist.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Do you believe God does not exist, or are you not certain about whether God does or doesn't exist?

This is a false dichotomy.

One can be uncertain as to the existence and/or nonexistence of a god or gods, and still disbelieve they exist.

1) That wasn't the dichotomy.

2) There is a difference between
(a) believing God does not exist, and
(b) not believing that God exists.

3) What you're describing, both
(a) One can be uncertain as to the existence and/or nonexistence of a god or gods, and
(b) still disbelieve they exist.

are true of the proper definition of agnosticism but (a) is false on the proper definition of atheism.

[downbeatplumb]

There was a time in History when being a Christian mean't that you believed in creationism, witches and a young earth.

I have decided all by myself that that is the only definition of Christianity I will accept, after all at one point it was true.

So that is what all christians on this site believe no matter what they say.

[Simon Moon]

2) There is a difference between
(a) believing God does not exist, and
(b) not believing that God exists.

Exactly.

The first statement has the negation on 'exists', the second has the negation on 'belief'.

They both describe atheism.

3) What you're describing, both
(a) One can be uncertain as to the existence and/or nonexistence of a god or gods, and
(b) still disbelieve they exist.

are true of the proper definition of agnosticism but (a) is false on the proper definition of atheism.

Statement (a) is the true and proper definition of agnosticism.

Statement (b) describes atheism.

Why do you capitalize 'God'? Are you referring to a particular god?

[pocaracas]

Yeah... how does an Indian dictionary define their word for atheist?
Someone who believes that Shiva &co. do not exist?

[WashedinChristblood]

It looks like you stupid atheist fools are getting a good ol assrape from Vinny. All of you worthless abortionist/baby genociders think you are so great. Vinny like me has the TRUTH of the almighty written into our hearts. When you atheist are done playing your game of 'what do we fucking call ourselves' you might learn to respect Christ and get off your asses and on your filthy knees and let him into your hearts. I will pray for you unworthy sinners.

[Whateverist]

It looks like you stupid atheist fools are getting a good ol assrape from Vinny. All of you worthless abortionist/baby genociders think you are so great. Vinny like me has the TRUTH of the almighty written into our hearts. When you atheist are done playing your game of 'what do we fucking call ourselves' you might learn to respect Christ and get off your asses and on your filthy knees and let him into your hearts. I will pray for you unworthy sinners.

You are a credit to all your kind. Bless you.

[Esquilax]

It looks like you stupid atheist fools are getting a good ol assrape from Vinny. All of you worthless abortionist/baby genociders think you are so great. Vinny like me has the TRUTH of the almighty written into our hearts. When you atheist are done playing your game of 'what do we fucking call ourselves' you might learn to respect Christ and get off your asses and on your filthy knees and let him into your hearts. I will pray for you unworthy sinners.

You do understand that if you keep this up, not even your god will save you from our banhammer, yes? This is me with my mod-hat on, by the way: cut the crap and talk to us like we're all human beings, or you will be ejected from the premises.

You don't get to preach with this level of vitriol here.

Oh, and by the way, don't assume that Vin believes what you do, because as far as I know, he hasn't stated his own position anywhere in the forums yet.