Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Mister Agenda]

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".

How is albinism defined? Not all 'isms' are ideologies. An 'ism' can be a condition. Theism is the condition of believing in at least one god or God. Atheism is the condition of not believing in at least one god or God.

---

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*.

Y: That's what I've been saying, you retard!

[Cyberman]

How is albinism defined? Not all 'isms' are ideologies. An 'ism' can be a condition. Theism is the condition of believing in at least one god or God. Atheism is the condition of not believing in at least one god or God.

Courtesy of NephilimFree, Conservapedia's favourite centrefold pinup boy:

[Strongbad]

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--

I'm not sure I agree with this 100%.

When you say "I don't believe in God", what exactly is it about "God" that you don't believe in?

It means you no longer believe the claims made about God existing. In the absence of a positive claim being made about God's existence, there is nothing to disbelieve "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.

A positive claim has been made that there is a monkey in the closet. Which, apparently, cannot be verified.

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".

Or, an atheist might say "I don't believe the claim that there is a monkey in that closet". The claim is what is not believed "in", not the 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?[quote]

Yes, saying that you do not believe "in" the monkey does seem rather silly.

[quote]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:

I don't think "monkey deniers" are the same as "people who don't believe the claim that there is a monkey in the closet".

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."

You have indicated that not believing "in" something means that you do not believe it exists. The claim is that there is a monkey in the closet, but you are countering with "I don't believe the monkey exists"?

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.

I don't see how you jump from disbelieving the claim that God exists to believing the opposite - that God does not exist. Why does not believing one claim automatically lead to believing another?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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".

How is albinism defined? Not all 'isms' are ideologies. An 'ism' can be a condition. Theism is the condition of believing in at least one god or God. Atheism is the condition of not believing in at least one god or God.

Isn't albinism a medical condition? It's not a philosophical position or a view.

If you want to define atheism as a medical condition, be my guest. But the mentally sick are not usually taken seriously.

This shows the hoops you jump through when you try so desperately to redefine atheism.

Why not just accept that philosophical or intellectual views are one type of -ism, medical conditions are another. And all philosophical/intellectual views about reality are characterized by what they affirm.

---

Kudos for being intellectually honest.

---

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.
[/hide]

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

Then you should be gently corrected, as it's agnostic.

But if that's the view you hold, and it lines up with the definition, then good for you.

Agnosticism is a more rational position than atheism anyway.

[Darkstar]

Why not just accept that philosophical or intellectual views are one type of -ism, medical conditions are another. And all philosophical/intellectual views about reality are characterized by what they affirm.

To this I would answer that atheism is not an -ism, but a lack of a different -ism. That is:
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php

The root a- means not\without. Theism is defined as the belief in the existence of god. Therefore, a-theism is simply not having\being without that belief and that -ism.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Why not just accept that philosophical or intellectual views are one type of -ism, medical conditions are another. And all philosophical/intellectual views about reality are characterized by what they affirm.

To this I would answer that atheism is not an -ism, but a lack of a different -ism. That is:
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php

The root a- means not\without. Theism is defined as the belief in the existence of god. Therefore, a-theism is simply not having\being without that belief and that -ism.

The root is perfectly consistent with the view that atheism is an -ism, not "a lack of a different -ism".

Seriously, why are you arguing for this so much?

[Simon Moon]

Agnosticism is a more rational position than atheism anyway.

They are not mutually exclusive.

But of course, you've been explained why many times, yet you refuse to understand or accept the explanations.

Hypothetical conversation:

Theist: Do you believe a god exists?
Atheist: I disbelieve a god exists. (this statement defines one as an atheist)
Theist: How do you know that a god does not exist?
Atheist: I didn't say I claim to know that a god dies not exist, I said I disbelieve a god exists. (this statement defines someone as agnostic)

Whenever you read or hear the word 'know' think gnosticism/agnosticism. Whenever you read or hear the word 'believe' think theism/atheism.

A belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a proposition to be true.

Theism is the psychological state of accepting the proposition that at least one god exists to be true. Atheism is not having that psychological state with regards to gods.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Agnosticism is a more rational position than atheism anyway.

They are not mutually exclusive.

But of course, you've been explained why many times, yet you refuse to understand or accept the explanations.

Hypothetical conversation:

Theist: Do you believe a god exists?
Atheist: I disbelieve a god exists. (this statement defines one as an atheist)
Theist: How do you know that a god does not exist?
Atheist: I didn't say I claim to know that a god dies not exist, I said I disbelieve a god exists. (this statement defines someone as agnostic)

Whenever you read or hear the word 'know' think gnosticism/agnosticism. Whenever you read or hear the word 'believe' think theism/atheism.

A belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a proposition to be true.

Theism is the psychological state of accepting the proposition that at least one god exists to be true. Atheism is not having that psychological state with regards to gods.

Actually they are mutually exclusive, unless you are confusing atheism with irreligiosity.

In that sense, someone can be an irreligious agnostic, where they are practising "nones", although they are agnostics in the sense that they believe it is neither true nor false that God exists.

I know you feel like you know everything about this, but I think it's unlikely that you do. If you just read the OP, it makes it clear that the definition of atheism being used is a new invention. It just isn't the proper definition.

I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

[Strongbad]

I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

Do you mean to say that if you disbelieve a claim that is made by an individual, you are agnostic towards the claim itself?

[Mister Agenda]

How is albinism defined? Not all 'isms' are ideologies. An 'ism' can be a condition. Theism is the condition of believing in at least one god or God. Atheism is the condition of not believing in at least one god or God.

Isn't albinism a medical condition? It's not a philosophical position or a view.

Neither is atheism. It is the state of not having a belief in any deities being real.

If you want to define atheism as a medical condition, be my guest. But the mentally sick are not usually taken seriously.

Theism is the state of having a belief that at least one deity is real. If you want to go the route that correctly describing it as a state of belief instead of a philosophy is the same as calling it a mental illness, whatever floats your boat.

This shows the hoops you jump through when you try so desperately to redefine atheism.

It shows my grasp of the English language.

Why not just accept that philosophical or intellectual views are one type of -ism, medical conditions are another. And all philosophical/intellectual views about reality are characterized by what they affirm.

I do accept that. I should have anticipated that you would fixate on albinism being a medical condition and be unable to conceive of any other examples of 'isms' that aren't philosophies or medical conditions on your own. I chose albinism because it's an example of an 'ism' defined by a lack of something. My apologies for not foreseeing your predictable difficulties. Having been in conversations with people who can't imagine a use for 'half-a-wing' in a world with dozens of gliding species, I'm well aware of the collapse of imagination characteristic of people who are committed to arriving at a particular conclusion rather than thinking about it, so I've no excuse.

Here are some more 'isms' that are neither medical conditions nor philosophies: absenteeism, antagonism, aphorism, atonalism. baptism, bilingualism, electromagnetism, exorcism, galvanism, lyricism, magnetism, malapropism, mannerism, mechanism, mesmerism, microorganism, neologism, organism, photojournalism, plagiarism, spoonerism, syllogism, tourism, truism, vandalism, voltaism, vulcanism, and witticism.

I hope these examples help you grasp that noting that a word ends in 'ism' isn't a sufficient reason on which to base a conclusion that it is either a medical condition or a philosophy.

---

I know you feel like you know everything about this, but I think it's unlikely that you do. If you just read the OP, it makes it clear that the definition of atheism being used is a new invention. It just isn't the proper definition.

Atheist writers have been using the word 'atheism' in the sense that we are describing for centuries.

I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

And you're so concerned about that because why? It's our lookout, isn't it?