Opinion on this Creed

[Statler Waldorf]

Atheism is a word, word dictionaries describe the meanings of words as they are currently used.  Why would I look in a specialty dictionary to define a commonly used word?

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist.
Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionof...nition.htm

About.com?  Right, well you can use all of the user-generated websites you want to try and support your position, I'll stick to the actual philosophical standards.

[Alex K]

I stopped reading after the first line was offensive BS. Is this a joke? What idiot would say they "believe in Darwin", that's sily, and I'm not even talking about the other guys.

[Jenny A]

About.com?  Right, well you can use all of the user-generated websites you want to try and support your position, I'll stick to the actual philosophical standards.

Just what might "actual philosophical standards" be?  Words mean what people use them to mean.  Atheism among most atheists today means a lack of belief in a god or gods.  It is a single position on a single issue, not a philosophy.  Therefore, I don't give a rat's ass what the editors of a philosophers' dictionary think it means.

[Regina]

That creed is a novel. I don't have the time.

What I read wasn't bad though.

[Statler Waldorf]

About.com?  Right, well you can use all of the user-generated websites you want to try and support your position, I'll stick to the actual philosophical standards.


Just what might "actual philosophical standards" be?  Words mean what people use them to mean.  Atheism among most atheists today means a lack of belief in a god or gods.  It is a single position on a single issue, not a philosophy.  Therefore, I don't give a rat's ass what the editors of a philosophers' dictionary think it m

Something written and edited by actual philosophers would be a good start.  I have quoted from the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy.  You have given me nothing in return.  Given your logic, theists could simply define their position as, "The true belief that God exists" and then say, "See!  God does exist!".  No, that is not how it works, atheists try to redefine the word atheism because they are trying to avoid sharing the burden of proof, unfortunately for them it simply does not work that way.  Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief.  I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

[Whateverist]

I can find no actual reference that uses the term "lack of belief"- so if you simply lack a belief in god you're no more an atheist than the pigeon turd sitting on my balcony when I left for work this morning; after all, it lacks a belief in god as well.

I'm not sure "Pigeon Turdist" conveys my position as well as "atheist".  But it certainly conveys the level of importance I attach to deciding the claims made by theists rather well.

It has been a while since we've been graced by your efforts to set us straight.  What brings you here today?

[Statler Waldorf]

I can find no actual reference that uses the term "lack of belief"- so if you simply lack a belief in god you're no more an atheist than the pigeon turd sitting on my balcony when I left for work this morning; after all, it lacks a belief in god as well.

I'm not sure "Pigeon Turdist" conveys my position as well as "atheist".  But it certainly conveys the level of importance I attach to deciding the claims made by theists rather well.

It has been a while since we've been graced by your efforts to set us straight.  What brings you here today?

Well I was hoping to grant atheists a bit more epistemological grandure than that of a pigeon turd...but they seem to not want it.  Boredom has brought me back my friend, it is great to interact with you once again, I hope that you are well.

[Jenny A]

Something written and edited by actual philosophers would be a good start.  I have quoted from the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy. 

Irrelevant to the general meaning of the term. As an aside, I would not that the first use of the word atheist was by pagans to describe Christians, because Christians only believe in one god and not all of the rest of them.

You have given me nothing in return. 

Just the general definition of the word.

Given your logic, theists could simply define their position as, "The true belief that God exists" and then say, "See!  God does exist!". 

You are mistaking words describing a state of belief or non belief in gods, for claim of proof their beliefs are correct. A lack of belief in god is a state of being, not an argument for or against god. Belief that there is no god is also a state of being, not an argument for or against god. Belief that there is a god is a state of belief, not an argument that there is a god.

No, that is not how it works, atheists try to redefine the word atheism because they are trying to avoid sharing the burden of proof, unfortunately for them it simply does not work that way.  Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief. 

Belief in a claim, any claim, is not either or. It is always: proven, false, or unproven. For example, there is a quarter on my computer desk. I claim it is heads up. You can believe me, you can think I'm lying, or you can take the rational approach and remain undecided. Similarly, suppose there is a jar of jelly beans. I say there are 1003 jelly beans in the jar. The claim has been made. You can reject it, agree, or reserve judgment until the jelly beans are counted.

With regard to the god claim: gnostic atheists would say that there is no god; agnostic atheists (most of us) would say the god claim is unproven.

I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

People have been defining and redefining words since the beginning of language. The meaning of words changes over time. There's a whole branch of study devoted to that phenomenon. It's called entomology.

Setting words aside. I can't prove there is no god. I only claim that god remains an unproven claim. The burden of proving he exists remains on he who claims he does. What you suggest does away with the burden of proof altogether. The claim that big foot exists has been made. It is the burden of those claiming him to show big foot exists. The fact that most people find their evidence unconvincing does not shift the burden of proof to abigfootists.

[Dystopia]

Where did you get that definition of atheism?  It's wrong.

Oh, my a Christian come to explain to atheists what atheism is.  Good luck with that.

To be fair, some atheists like to tell Christians how to be a good and bad Christian so it goes both ways.


Atheism can mean a lot of things depending on the historical context. For Marxists atheism entails a materialistic vision of the world and complete rejection of gods and the supernatural. The current definitions seems appropriate, but it is only true because it says so in the dictionary - It only takes one alteration and it all goes down. Definitions don't matter as much as people with the label act.

[Simon Moon]

Something written and edited by actual philosophers would be a good start.  I have quoted from the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy.  You have given me nothing in return.  Given your logic, theists could simply define their position as, "The true belief that God exists" and then say, "See!  God does exist!".

False.

By saying that we lack belief in gods is not an existential claim, like "The true belief that God exists" is.

No, that is not how it works, atheists try to redefine the word atheism because they are trying to avoid sharing the burden of proof, unfortunately for them it simply does not work that way.

So, if I coined my own term "shmatheist", and defined that position as "the lack of belief that gods exist", would you be okay with that?

Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief.  I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

Even if atheist is defined as "disbelief in the existence of god or gods", atheists still do not have the burden of proof. 

Disbelief in a claim is still not a claim. 


[/quote]