Defining "Atheism"

[Strongappleby]

I do not understand why you cannot understand that.

I do understand that, but certain people who have asked the question I mentioned earlier insist that atheism has been redefined as a lack of belief in a god, when before it was defined as a strong belief that there is no god.

Do you understand that?

[Paul the Human]

It seems to me that the subject of atheism is an enquiry into the existence or non-existence of god.

Atheism itself is not an inquiry into anything. It is a response to an inquiry. That of the existence of gods. It seems as if you are complicating and expanding the simple definition of the word atheism, which causes people like me to attempt clarification, which in turn... derails threads (not this one, as this is the topic).

People question, debate, doubt, and contemplate the existence of gods, but only those which lack belief in their existence are atheists. The person that claims a solid belief that there are no gods, does lack belief, and so is an atheist with or without the belief that there are none.

---

I do not understand why you cannot understand that.

I do understand that, but certain people who have asked the question I mentioned earlier insist that atheism has been redefined as a lack of belief in a god, when before it was defined as a strong belief that there is no god.

Do you understand that?

I understand the etymology of the word atheist. Someone that holds a strong belief that there is no god is, indeed, an atheist, but one is not required to hold that belief in order to lack a belief in god. Only the lack of belief is required to be considered an atheist.

And I am tired of typing that over and over again. Heheh. I don't really care that much.

By the way, I personally believe that there are no gods. That is for another thread, however.

[Existentialist]

It seems as if you are complicating and expanding the simple definition of the word atheism, which causes people like me to attempt clarification, which in turn... derails threads (not this one, as this is the topic).

Now that's not fair. I am trying to describe the qualities and concepts contained within atheism, not change the simple definition of it. Dictionary definitions are limited and if every time someone says more about a subject than is strictly defined in the dictionary, they get criticised for attempting to change, expand or complicate the dictionary definition, then we will not be able to have a conversation about anything. But if you want to re-word what I'm saying to "the study of atheism involves an enquiry into the non-existence of God" then I have no objection. My comments about belief and non-belief still stand.

People question, debate, doubt, and contemplate the existence of gods, but only those which lack belief in their existence are atheists. The person that claims a solid belief that there are no gods, does lack belief, and so is an atheist with or without the belief that there are none.

It is, however, a problem that some definitions of atheism don't mention belief, and other definitions do. That is what makes me think that belief is an expendable component of the concept of atheism. Belief and non-belief are separate words from denial and non-denial.

[Paul the Human]

It is, however, a problem that some definitions of atheism don't mention belief, and other definitions do. That is what makes me think that belief is an expendable component of the concept of atheism. Belief and non-belief are separate words from denial and non-denial.

I think that quote clarifies your position, unless I misunderstand. I understand the point you are attempting to make. I do disagree, however.

Amoral is not a denial of morality, it is a lack of morality.

Asexual is not a denial of sexuality, it is a lack of sexuality.

Atheism is not a denial of theism, it is a lack of theism.

Of course, the denial of theism is an atheistic position, but it is still atheism without that denial. That being the case, the only thing required to be defined as 'atheism' is a lack of belief in gods. The belief that there are no gods is not required to fit the definition of atheism.

That's why people use qualifiers to define their atheism more specifically. Denial of theism would require the qualifier 'strong' or possibly 'gnostic'. Without those qualifiers, the only thing the word atheism tells us is that the person does not believe in gods, not whether that person believes there are none.

[Welsh cake]

If you spend an unhealthy amount of time on YouTube, particularly on atheist videos, you may have come across videos answering a user who asks for "proof and evedidence that atheism is accurate and correct."

That's shockofgod for you, a complete self-righteous arsehole who doesn't understand what the word "atheism" even means, there's really nothing more to say about him.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Thinking that we can establish a word's meaning by looking at its roots is a fallacy: to be precise, the etymological fallacy.

The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Atheism means whatever the majority wants it to mean. Most atheists mean it as simple lack of belief. So that's that. If we want to add claims of the impossibility, or improbabilty, of God's existence, then we can (as I do). So agnosticism, as it's commonly defined (a position of uncertainty), is an atheistic position.

[Existentialist]

Amoral is not a denial of morality, it is a lack of morality.
Asexual is not a denial of sexuality, it is a lack of sexuality.
Atheism is not a denial of theism, it is a lack of theism.

Of course, the denial of theism is an atheistic position, but it is still atheism without that denial. That being the case, the only thing required to be defined as 'atheism' is a lack of belief in gods. The belief that there are no gods is not required to fit the definition of atheism.

That's why people use qualifiers to define their atheism more specifically. Denial of theism would require the qualifier 'strong' or possibly 'gnostic'. Without those qualifiers, the only thing the word atheism tells us is that the person does not believe in gods, not whether that person believes there are none.

I agree there is confusion between two separate and distinct definitions of atheism but I don't think it can be sorted out just by identifying the lowest common denominator between the two definitions. The most popular definition seems to be the one that says atheism is the denial of the existence of god. The problem is, if that gets watered down so that it gets included in the other definition, then what's the point of having a separate definition for it? Is there some dictionary rule about not being allowed to select one definition while rejecting the other? The site rules of this forum don't cover it, because if I say that atheism means the denial of the existence of god, but I don't think it means mere disbelief in god, then I'm still using a standard dictionary definition, I'm just not using all the definitions. Besides, it's not a problem because, as you say, the thread is about discussing what the meaning is.

I don't think most people have a clue what the qualifiers 'strong' and 'gnostic' mean. I can't honestly go round calling myself one of the gnostic atheists in general conversation, I understand it has a technical meaning, it just sounds like an obscure sect. I think that would be a cause for as much hilarity about my choice of words as I get from trying to describe meanings better in this site. I am really between the devil and the deep blue sea, I suppose.

I think your statements about amorality, asexuality and atheism are bad examples. Firstly as for as I can gather, a- is a generalised greek negative, not specifically 'lack of'. Second, it has come to mean different things when applied to different words. Thirdly, denial of the existence of god is specifically a dictionary definition - in fact, it's the most popular, so your three examples collapse as a proof of consistency. You can say denial of is encapsulated by lack of, but you can't really lay the law down an force a god-denier to accept the secondary definition, especially as he has already accepted the first.

[Paul the Human]

You can say denial of is encapsulated by lack of, but you can't really lay the law down an force a god-denier to accept the secondary definition, especially as he has already accepted the first.

Just because the 'god-denier' correctly considers himself an atheist does not mean that he cannot accept that his denial is not what makes him one. His lack of belief is what makes him one. His denial is a secondary component to his state of atheism. A 'stronger' atheism than simply lacking belief, as it were.

*laughs*

We've definitely whittled it down to a specific sticking point, but I have no interest in debating it further, as I doubt either of us will be swayed. No offense, I just think we're done here. At least... I am.

[Existentialist]

Thinking that we can establish a word's meaning by looking at its roots is a fallacy: to be precise, the etymological fallacy.

The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Atheism means whatever the majority wants it to mean. Most atheists mean it as simple lack of belief. So that's that. If we want to add claims of the impossibility, or improbabilty, of God's existence, then we can (as I do). So agnosticism, as it's commonly defined (a position of uncertainty), is an atheistic position.

I agree that many words don't have the same meaning as they did when the word was originally formed. It's how we're constructing the word now that matters. Etymology, like dictionaries, can inform, not dictate.

"Atheism means whatever the majority wants it to mean," is problematic. I thought we were moving to the convention that meanings are found in dictionaries - not a stance I would take but hey, if that's the rule, who am I to break it? My dictionaries are giving the most popular meaning as "denial of the existence of God" or words to that effect. Disbelief is secondary. That is the way the word is being used in the world today according to the dictionary compilers. Do we need a worldwide vote on what atheism means? Is that practical?

---

You can say denial of is encapsulated by lack of, but you can't really lay the law down an force a god-denier to accept the secondary definition, especially as he has already accepted the first.

Just because the 'god-denier' correctly considers himself an atheist does not mean that he cannot accept that his denial is not what makes him one. His lack of belief is what makes him one. His denial is a secondary component to his state of atheism. A 'stronger' atheism than simply lacking belief, as it were.

*laughs*

We've definitely whittled it down to a specific sticking point, but I have no interest in debating it further, as I doubt either of us will be swayed. No offense, I just think we're done here. At least... I am.

On the contrary, my denial of the existence of God makes me an atheist. The dictionary says so. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Tiberius]

Adrian – there’s really no need to raise your voice at me, even metaphorically. I never broke your rule about dictionary definitions even before you invented it, so please don’t start talking ‘loudly’ at me about some Minority Report-style precrime that I’m supposed to be about to commit when you’ve never provided a morsel of evidence that I’m even a one-off offender against your new rules and regulations, either now or retrospectively. Thank you.

There really is a need to "raise" my voice when you are continually being moronic and going back to these stupid points about redefining words. I have provided evidence *every* time you have asked for it, and you have quickly tried to shy away. I'm not going to list the links again; I've provided them to you on several occasions now. Now you have a simple choice: stop trying to redefine words, or go to some other atheist forum where people don't mind you bastardising the English language.

Luckily for me you may have the power to make false allegations against me here, but you don’t have the power to exclude me from the ‘philosophical community’, whatever elitist little imaginary club that may be, but even if you did have such a power, that wouldn’t stop me talking about philosophy. You can either be involved in the discussion or not. The choice is yours.

It isn't an elitist club, nor is it imaginary. Just like the scientific community (which is made up of scientists doing research), the philosophical community is made up of philosophers thinking about various questions and using logic to form arguments. Are you active in this field? If so, please give me a link to your latest essay, as it appears in a philosophical journal, or other academic institution.

We can of course have a conversation about the etymology and evolution of the terms atheism and theism but I don't think it's going to help much here.

The subject is defining "atheism". I can't fathom how you think the etymology and evolution of the terms isn't relevant...it's not only relevant, it gives the answer to the question posed in the subject.

Let's talk about modern language. Now you might need to check your dictionary to confirm this, but I’m pretty sure I’m right when I say that sticking the word ‘believe’ in parentheses after the word ‘subscribe’ doesn’t give it the same definition. But by using this device you merrily exclude the possibility that the discussion of atheism might not always compulsorily involve the concept of belief. That’s my point. A debate can be a debate between two positions and is not automatically ‘impossible’ just because the two positions don't meet the criteria of a belief. Please explain why you think they should.

A belief is a state in which a person holds a certain proposition (statement) to be true. It is impossible to have a debate without discussing in some way, the "truth" value of what is being discussed. If you think you can find an example of a debate which doesn't discuss the truth of a statement at some point, then please enlighten me.

It would be helpful if you could also stop asserting that you've provided a proof without then actually stating what the proof is, as to be honest it comes across as evasive.

I gave you the proof...twice. Are you having trouble reading?

"To have any middle ground between "believing" and "not believing" is a violation of the 3rd law of classical logic, the law of the excluded middle. That is the argument."

You say that one cannot make any statement without either having a belief or not having a belief in it. Is it not possible to exclude the concept of belief from the discussion? The third law of classical logic only applies to the concepts that are in play. If one chooses to exclude the concept of belief from the discussion, one can still make a statement that god does not exist.

No, because by making the statement "god does not exist" one is making a statement of knowledge, and knowledge is a subset of belief (true, justified, belief). Even if Plato is wrong, I have yet to see a definition of knowledge that doesn't involve belief, given that it is a blatant contradiction to say that you have knowledge of something, but do not believe it is true. If you know something is true, you cannot possibly believe it is not true.

To clarify here, it matters not if the concept of belief is being discussed; belief itself is mandatory for any discussion, because all ideas that can be discussed are at some point based on beliefs of the people discussing them. You cannot have a discussion without belief coming into play, even if that belief isn't discussed at all.

By all means argue with me but please could you refrain from raising your voice, swearing at me, or mixing up your contributions as an equal participant in a discussion with your role as a dispenser of discipline.

Tell you what, I'll stop "raising my voice" when you stop joking around and accept that words are defined, standardised, and used by people because it helps with communication. People shouldn't be free to make their own definitions up and expect people to follow them as some kind of exercise in bastardising the English language.

In short, if you can abide by the rules and actually contribute some decent discussion to the topics here, instead of nit-picking at various words and claiming they mean things that you dreamed up the night before, I'll stop calling you on it. Simples!

And while you're at it why don't you get rid of that stupid Hipster Hitler avatar? It's only funny if it's ironic.

Why don't you get rid of that stupid Titanic avatar? When you understand why you don't want to, maybe you'll understand why I don't want to get rid of mine...though I'm not counting on it.

Also, I made a lovely response to your assertion that atheism isn't the opposite of theism, and I backed up my reasoning that it is with understanding of the Greek stems from which the words come. Please respond to it, or I'll assume you've accepted that you were completely wrong.

I leave you with the Oxford English Dictionary definition of atheism:

"Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."