Defining "Atheism"

[Paul the Human]

There have been some decent points made by all sides of this discussion, but it seems to me that it doesn't have to be that complicated. In fact, it should be as simple as possible.

If someone claims to hold the belief that there are no gods, we know that person is an atheist by definition. However, if someone claims to be an atheist, all we know is that the person lacks a belief in gods. The use of the word 'atheist' does not tell us whether or not that person believes that there are none.

If someone claimed that they do not believe in gods, but do not necessarily hold a belief that there are none... would you tell that person they are "No True Atheist"? I should hope not.

The point being... 'a lack of belief in deities' is the only thing the word 'atheist' (on it's own) can possibly indicate about someone. Many other things can be assumed, but 'lack of belief' is the only thing that is known for certain.

Anyway I still believe that you need belief in order to be an atheist.

You do. You have to believe in reality and evidence. You have to believe that the scientific method and rational thought are a more reliable way to search for truth than superstition and magical thinking.

[Skipper]

I don't want to blindly accept anything, also I don't want to blindly reject.

Anyway I still believe that you need belief in order to be an atheist.

Thanks

If you are on the fence and don't want to blindly accept or reject anything all you can do is look at the evidence and make yourm ind up. Now going purely on evidence and demonstrable facts alone the only conclusion in my eyes that you can come to is that there is no God. Now if you want to theorise about what started the universe and time and also throw in a ton of faith then I guess you can also believe in a god.

Also, there is no need for belief to become an Atheist, it is purely lack of belief by definition.

[Tiberius]

Anyway I still believe that you need belief in order to be an atheist.

Before I engage you, I'd like to know your exact stance on the subject, so please give me your answers to these questions:

1) If a person believes in the existence of a God (any God), what would you label them?
2) If a person believes that no Gods exist, what would you label them?
3) If a person has no belief one way or the other concerning the existence of Gods, what would you call them?

Perhaps I should comment on the third question (it's the most important for me, anyway). I am not asking about people who are "undecided" about what they believe. The group of people covered by (3) includes those who reject both position (1) and position (2). So whilst some of them could be classified as "undecided", there can exist some who have actively decided to be position (3), as opposed to position (1) or position (3).

Once I understand how you separate people out, I'll be able to better engage you on your assertions

[Existentialist]

you are continually being moronic

Verbal abuse isn't acceptable to me. If you want me to take any notice of your post, please edit your comments to remove the abuse. Thanks Adrian.

Anyway I still believe that you need belief in order to be an atheist.

You do. You have to believe in reality and evidence. You have to believe that the scientific method and rational thought are a more reliable way to search for truth than superstition and magical thinking.

May I ask why you think that is the case? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no requirement to believe in reality, nor evidence, nor that the scientific method or rational thought are a more reliable way to search for truth than superstition and magical thinking. If someone disbelieves in god because they claim an imaginary pixie made them give up their faith in God, then they are just as much an atheist as someone who believes there is no god because they claim to have good rational reasons for that belief. Proponents of rationalistic thinking can of course argue that their own atheism is based on rationality, evidence and science, but they would be wrong to deny others the right to be an atheist on the grounds that they 'have to believe' in rationality, science, evidence etc.

there is no need for belief to become an Atheist, it is purely lack of belief by definition.

I agree with the first part, there is no need for belief that there is no god in order to become an atheist (if that is what you're saying), but I'm afraid I think the second part is wrong. If somebody has a belief that there is no god, they are an atheist. A belief that there is no god of course results in a 'lack of belief' that there is a god, but to then describe that as 'purely' a lack of belief would be misrepresenting the individual.

The definition of atheism specifically identifies the belief that there is no god as being a legitimate definition, the definition itself does not wrap that up with people who 'simply' have lack of belief, even though logically it can, subsequent to defining atheism, be legitimately argued that the two definitions (or two parts of the same definition) share the same characteristic of 'lack of belief'. The distinction is important because the idea of a definition is to define something better, not to blur the reality, which I'm afraid saying atheism is 'purely a lack of belief by definition' does. I'm sorry this may seem laboured and complicated, but I believe it is correct - if anyone can come up with a more succinct way of expressing the same thing I would be only too pleased!

[Paul the Human]

Anyway I still believe that you need belief in order to be an atheist.

You do. You have to believe in reality and evidence. You have to believe that the scientific method and rational thought are a more reliable way to search for truth than superstition and magical thinking.

May I ask why you think that is the case? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no requirement to believe in reality... [snip]

I was being facetious.

Also, you seem to think that the belief that there are no god(s) must come first and is the cause of the 'lack of belief'. It makes far more sense the other way around. Speaking personally, it was my lack of belief in claims that deities exist that inspired me to look into it to the point that I have decided I actually believe they do not exist. Many others (as my poll shows) do not hold the belief that god(s) do not exist, yet they are atheists, nonetheless... because they do not believe the claims that god(s) do exist. One can lack belief without actually believing that either choice is true.

[Existentialist]

I was being facetious.

Sorry I missed that, it was too subtle for me!

Also, you seem to think that the belief that there are no god(s) must come first and is the cause of the 'lack of belief'.

It makes far more sense the other way around. Speaking personally, it was my lack of belief in claims that deities exist that inspired me to look into it to the point that I have decided I actually believe they do not exist. Many others (as my poll shows) do not hold the belief that god(s) do not exist, yet they are atheists, nonetheless... because they do not believe the claims that god(s) do exist. One can lack belief without actually believing that either choice is true.

I don't really think that the belief there are no gods 'comes first' if you mean in order of precedence, hierarchy or popularity. If you mean it tends to come first chronologically in the development of a god-denying atheist then you may be right, but I'd need to think about it more to say it makes sense that way round.

[Tiberius]

There is no "abuse". I've pointed out where you've been moronic every single time you have been. Your continual refusal to address my points despite me addressing yours several times, as well as your attempts at denying I ever put forward any proofs (despite them being quite clearly outlined twice) just adds to the veracity of my statement about your character.

[LastPoet]

Existencialist, you get too much stuck on semantics. You do know that natural languages are imperfect don't you?

[-KT]

I think atheism isn't the lack of belief, it's the lack of faith. No one can really believe in nothing, everyone has to have some belief, even if it's wrong. However atheism is the lack of faith. People who believe in deities such as God have a faith in them. They have faith in the bible, because no matter how stupid it gets they still follow their life by it. Atheists don't have this faith in science, because they have the support of empirical evidence, there's no need for faith.

[Ervin]

Anyway I still believe that you need belief in order to be an atheist.

Before I engage you, I'd like to know your exact stance on the subject, so please give me your answers to these questions:

1) If a person believes in the existence of a God (any God), what would you label them?
2) If a person believes that no Gods exist, what would you label them?
3) If a person has no belief one way or the other concerning the existence of Gods, what would you call them?

Perhaps I should comment on the third question (it's the most important for me, anyway). I am not asking about people who are "undecided" about what they believe. The group of people covered by (3) includes those who reject both position (1) and position (2). So whilst some of them could be classified as "undecided", there can exist some who have actively decided to be position (3), as opposed to position (1) or position (3).

Once I understand how you separate people out, I'll be able to better engage you on your assertions

1)A person who believes in God I would label them a believer in God

2) a person that doesn't believe in God I would label as believer in no God theory

3) I supose I would call someone who has no belief either way a agnostic or undecided. Undicided is when it seems like he/she are about to make a decision sometime soon or I supose just agnostic.

Now these are my views on the subject

Thanks