Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Cyberman]

Kinda sucks for you 'athiests' to be corrected when you butcher the language.

'Atheists'.

Now you guys are complaining that you weren't hung with s new rope.

'Hanged'.

[Mister Agenda]

Kinda sucks for you 'athiests' to be corrected when you butcher the language. Now you guys are complaining that you weren't hung with s new rope.

At least we can spell it. And the 'correction' was strictly regarding the tradtional philosophical use of the word, not current usage, which is what people actually use in conversation. Anthony Flew's 'introduction' of the more inclusive meaning to philosophy was merely pointing out to 'philosophy' how atheists started using the word almost two centuries prior to Flew's manuscript. Holbach's remark is from Good Sense, written in the late 1700s.

[Tonus]

Okay, I have a question. When you have a entire community of atheists telling you one definition for atheism and a dictionary telling you another then which is it?

If I was in that situation I'd put down the dictionary, grab a glass of orange juice, then go outside and enjoy the sunshine and the glass of orange juice and try to forget why the fuck I was worrying about the definition of the word "atheism."

[Lemonvariable72]

Okay, I have a question. When you have a entire community of atheists telling you one definition for atheism and a dictionary telling you another then which is it?

If I was in that situation I'd put down the dictionary, grab a glass of orange juice, then go outside and enjoy the sunshine and the glass of orange juice and try to forget why the fuck I was worrying about the definition of the word "atheism."

Good point, it is dumb but it really makes me mad, because it is so arrogant to try to define what someone else believes just so you can make a point easier. Maybe we should define Christianity for Christians.

[LostLocke]

Okay, I have a question. When you have a entire community of atheists telling you one definition for atheism and a dictionary telling you another then which is it?

Like someone said above, let them call you what they want.
I'd simply tell them them my belief/stance on the whole issue, namely.... I do not believe in any gods, and I do not make the claim that I know no gods exist as a fact.
If they think that makes me an atheist, I'm an atheist. If they think that makes me an agnostic, I'm an agnostic. If they think that makes me a blueberry pie, I'm a blueberry pie.

I really don't give two shits what the label is, as long as people understand what your position is without putting words into your mouth. We only use labels so we don't have to constantly re-explain what we believe, but apparently with some of these "philosophical" types you'll have to keep re-explaining because they'll waste more time and energy dissecting a word down its microscopic definitions than discussing what the word was intended to mean in the first place.

[Tonus]

Good point, it is dumb but it really makes me mad, because it is so arrogant to try to define what someone else believes just so you can make a point easier. Maybe we should define Christianity for Christians.

Well, they have something like 40,000 definitions for it themselves. What's one more?

I think that the discussion on "what is an atheist" is usually used as a way to deflect from more substantive discussion. A theist who is trying to make sure that I understand the meaning of the word might better spend that time proving his own views and beliefs instead. But it seems to me that many of them spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince me that I might be wrong about some detail or other. I'd rather not encourage such useless exercises when there's more interesting discussion to be had.

[FallentoReason]

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.

[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.

[Lemonvariable72]

---

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.

---

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.

---

[Darkstar]

And if I call myself a agonistic (like I do) then what?

I think we're conflating knowledge with belief again. I agree with much of what FallentoReason said, but I don't think that shifts the burden of proof wholly to atheists. Until theists come up with a falsifiable claim, it would be absurd to expect opponents to disprove it absolutely. Rather, in the lack of any evidence for a god, I would say that this gives us no reason to believe a god exists and "proves" (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) that god doesn't exist.

More to the point, belief god does not exist is not incompatible with an agnostic stance. I personally believe god doesn't exist, but I am also agnostic about that belief.