Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Lemonvariable72]

I find it funny that several there sprt the definition I use, namely collins and oxford.

[houseofcantor]

Yay! I got the most Vinnie vitriol! I win!

[Darkstar]

Darkstar

Imagine if there was a citation required for every unsupported claim you made in your post.

Erase the parts that are unsupported. And give me what's left.

I don't actually know what you're talking about. Let's see here:

Again, agnosticism vs. gnosticism is about knowledge, whereas theism is about belief.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown.

---

Philosopher William L. Rowe states that in the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist.[2]

I cannot speak for whomever you were originally addressing, but I believe the terms you are looking for would be hard/positive atheism (belief god does not exist) and soft/negative atheism (lack of belief god exists). Agnostic/gnostic can be tacked onto either one.

Negative and positive atheism

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]

I would still argue that the second definition is equally valid because the suffix a- means lacking/without, and so atheism could logically be denoted as merely lacking theism (though it can certainly also mean the opposite of theism).

http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php

If you still have problems, you will need to tell me what they are, rather than making an unsupported blanket refutation.

(And before you say that wikipedia doesn't count, you should know that those wiki pages cite their sources)

[Esquilax]

Esquilax
Someone is wrong on the internet.jpg

Although, to be fair, I'm curious as to whether there are atheists who think critically about their own views and beliefs. In a way, I'm testing the hypothesis that atheists are just as irrational, if not more so, than theists.

Except that, as I've pointed out to you numerous times in this debate, the dictionary definition you're trying to force on us doesn't match with our beliefs, and nor are we required to change them to comport with what a dictionary says, even so. You know this, just from a casual glance around the responses here. Your rationale doesn't work; you're asking us to examine beliefs we don't hold, and then trying to apply them to us anyway, which is why I asked the question in the first place:

You can't make us believe what you want us to. We believe what we believe, regardless of what you or any dictionary thinks we should. This question of definitions doesn't help your case in the slightest. All it does is show that you weren't willing to consider your own beliefs before you threw your hat into this ring.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

houseofcantor
Theism and atheism are not merely about "belief" in God, because then theism and atheism are essentially about whether someone practices a religious faith or not, rather than about whether a deity does or doesn't exist. If we're talking to atheists about their "belief" in God rather than "the existence of" God then the conversation ends quickly- there is no belief, end of story. But this "lack of belief" extends not only to atheists but to agnostics, deists, some broad pantheists, some Buddhists and even some nominally religious people. Ie, someone can be a fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheist.

That should tip you off that houseofcantor's reasoning has gone off the deep end. But wait, there's more! Not only does houseofcantor's reasoning allow for the silliness that is fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheists, but it also voids a well-accepted term already in use that already does the job houseofcantor wants atheism to do. That term is "irreligious." The irreligious do not have any beliefs in Gods, whether or not they believe such deities exist.

So not only is your attempt a necessary precursor to much silliness, but it also requires a wholesale readjustment of well-established norms of the English language, like an atheist miracle whereby you steal the meaning of irreligious and apply it to atheism without anyone noticing.

One is forced to ask why you are so desperate to relabel atheism? What's the real reason you're so desperate to make such silly arguments to preserve your ridiculous redefinition?

Esquilax
Someone is wrong on the internet.jpg

Although, to be fair, I'm curious as to whether there are atheists who think critically about their own views and beliefs. In a way, I'm testing the hypothesis that atheists are just as irrational, if not more so, than theists.

I wouldn't say atheists are winning, because there really are some kooky theists I've talked to. But it looks pretty close if we're going by this forum.

Ben Davis
Imagine if Deepak Chopra tried to correct you. Would you accept what he says, or ask him to provide citations? Now imagine you are saying something as kooky as Deepak Chopra, trying to convince me that words mean what you declare that they mean.

PS-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1385761866

athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist

Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery

Optimistic Mysanthrope

Yes, silly you.

And why can't you let athiests use the term the way they prefer to define it?

I can let them use it how they want. But I can't agree to or accept their definition, like I won't let conmen use the prefix "Dr" in the way they way they prefer to use it.

It abuses the established definitions of the word, and lies to the public.

Presumably it's for the same reason that we don't let creationists define science the way they prefer. Otherwise you might as well just through the dictionary in the bin.

Now you're getting it.

athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist

Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery

Optimistic Mysanthrope

Yes, silly you.

The Ancient Romans coined the term 'atheism' to define Christians because they didn't worship the Roman deities.

Looks like you need to have a talk with the ancient Romans. According to them, you are misusing the term.

Yes, silly you.

By the way, Noah Webster was an Evangelical Christian. In the preface of his original editions he wrote,

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. "


If you find an old edition of Webster's dictionary, atheism is defined as 'Godlessness'.

So, after you take it up with the Romans, you can have a word with Webster himself.

Why do you insist on using incorrect definitions, Vinny?

Not the Romans, the Greeks. It only came into popular use with the Romans, but mainstream and official contemporary usage is firmly supportive of the definition I provided.

Invoking Webster's religion doesn't make his definition incorrect. An old definition doesn't make the new definition incorrect.

You're grasping at straws here, Moon.

I've made it clear why I prefer the actual definition of atheism as opposed to the internet definition.

So tell me why you're using your definition, as opposed to agnosticism?

PS-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1385761866

athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist

Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery

Nice falacy those merriam guys have there....

How about we ask some other team?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...?q=atheist

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictiona...?q=atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[...]
Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym study at the current entry) ; 2. atheist, theist, deist.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/atheist

a person who does not believe in God or gods adj of or relating to atheists or atheism

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/diction...olicy=true

a person who does not believe in God or gods

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dicti...sh/atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.as...ne=atheist

someone who denies the existence of god

http://www.babylon.com/define/40/online-...onary.html

one who believes that God does not exist

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/atheism

someone who does not believe in God : atheist

################
Well, it seems that all the dictionaries that state that an atheist is "someone who believes that god does not exist" Have been copying each other, given that the wording is always the same... Which is something that doesn't happen for the others... odd, don't you think?

Let's drop the dictionary, and look at... etymology!
Not many etymology dictionaries around....

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allo...hmode=none

1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

http://wordinfo.info/searches/results/atheist

1. Someone who does not believe in a God or gods or who denies the existence of a God, gods, or deities: "An atheist believes there is no God while an agnostic believes human beings can never know whether there is a God or not."
2. A person who denies, or disbelieves, that there is a supreme being or beings: "John's friend, who is an atheist, enjoys having long philosophical discussions with the archbishop of the local church."
3. A disbeliever, an unbeliever, a nonbeliever, a denier of God's existence, a godless person: "Laura believes in the existence of God, but her brother is an atheist."
4. Etymology: from French athéiste, from ancient Greek atheos, "godless, denying the gods"; from a-), "without, no" + theos), "god".

#################

So, what is it?
Which dictionary is right?
Why do most atheists (the ones on this site, on other sites and those who've written a few books on the subject) claim that it means someone who does not believe in the existence of any god?
Why, based on the definition from the previous question, does it look like Merriam and others have a bias?

You've done some legwork, I'll give you that. Kudos.

But using a definition you don't like is not a "falacy."

Oxford is the notable exception, but Cambridge supports my definition. the SEP in the OP supports it.

Dictionary.com seems supportive of both definitions (probably pressure from internet atheists). It's notable that they think atheist can be confused with agnostic, because the internet atheist is actually an agnostic.

MacMillan agrees with me, as does hyper and babylon.

Word Reference, Collins and Longman make a minor error in their wording. Namely, someone who "Does not believe in God" or "Does not believe in the existence of God" can technically be an agnostic rather than an atheist.

You say they are copying each other, but there's no proof, just your accusation, since you don't like their definition.

Your appeal to etymology is weak because word usage changes over time, especially between the Greeks/Romans and contemporary usage.

But overall it's looking pretty good for my point. A large number of very credible dictionaries take my definition and reject the internet atheist definition.

Finally, and notably, Collins American defines atheist as "a person who believes that there is no God" with a further note:

an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God; an agnostic questions the existence of God, heaven, etc. in the absence of material proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation; deist, a historical term, was applied to 18th-cent. rationalists who believed in God as a creative, moving force but who otherwise rejected formal religion and its doctrines of revelation, divine authority, etc.; freethinker, the current parallel term, similarly implies rejection of the tenets and traditions of formal religion as incompatible with reason; unbeliever is a more negative term, simply designating, without further qualification, one who does not accept any religious belief; infidel is applied to a person not believing in a certain religion or the prevailing religion

Lemonvariable27, this is the definition you're using right?

All in all, my definition is looking good.

---

Darkstar

Imagine if there was a citation required for every unsupported claim you made in your post.

Erase the parts that are unsupported. And give me what's left.

I don't actually know what you're talking about. Let's see here:

Again, agnosticism vs. gnosticism is about knowledge, whereas theism is about belief.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown.

---

Philosopher William L. Rowe states that in the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist.[2]

I cannot speak for whomever you were originally addressing, but I believe the terms you are looking for would be hard/positive atheism (belief god does not exist) and soft/negative atheism (lack of belief god exists). Agnostic/gnostic can be tacked onto either one.

Negative and positive atheism

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]

I would still argue that the second definition is equally valid because the suffix a- means lacking/without, and so atheism could logically be denoted as merely lacking theism (though it can certainly also mean the opposite of theism).

http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php

If you still have problems, you will need to tell me what they are, rather than making an unsupported blanket refutation.

(And before you say that wikipedia doesn't count, you should know that those wiki pages cite their sources)

Your quote said nothing about "gnosticism." In fact if you look at the origin of the word agnosticism, you'll see it has nothing to do with gnosticism. The current use of the word too, has nothing to do with gnosticism.

On positive and negative atheism, I'm a bit more accepting, since some significant minds, like Anthony Flew and Michael Martin are on board with it. But like the OP shows, Flew's claims were part of a strategic argument (he was trying to argue that atheism was the default position) which was ultimately rejected, and afaik his work needs significant massaging to make it say positive and negative atheism.

Michael Martin's work supports it more clearly, but these two are a clear minority, and I'm very tentative to accept it.

What is my conclusion at the end of this? I think at minimum, you need to accept that the alternative definition is a valid alternative, even if it is not the one you prefer.

Like has been shown above, the definition of atheism I provided is very well-accepted in the literature.

Esquilax
Someone is wrong on the internet.jpg

Although, to be fair, I'm curious as to whether there are atheists who think critically about their own views and beliefs. In a way, I'm testing the hypothesis that atheists are just as irrational, if not more so, than theists.

Except that, as I've pointed out to you numerous times in this debate, the dictionary definition you're trying to force on us doesn't match with our beliefs, and nor are we required to change them to comport with what a dictionary says, even so. You know this, just from a casual glance around the responses here. Your rationale doesn't work; you're asking us to examine beliefs we don't hold, and then trying to apply them to us anyway, which is why I asked the question in the first place:

You can't make us believe what you want us to. We believe what we believe, regardless of what you or any dictionary thinks we should. This question of definitions doesn't help your case in the slightest. All it does is show that you weren't willing to consider your own beliefs before you threw your hat into this ring.

When the definition of your belief doesn't match the dictionary, it's time to consider picking a new word to name your belief.

I recommend agnosticism, because it is essentially the same as "lacks belief in God."

I mean, doesn't it strike you as questionable that you're basically trying to redefine a word so you can apply it to yourself?

[Lemonvariable72]

No Vinny, the first Collins dictionary definition listed. Linked here. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/diction...olicy=true what I wonder is why are you being clearly dishonest.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

No Vinny, the first Collins dictionary definition listed. Linked here. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/diction...olicy=true what I wonder is why are you being clearly dishonest.

If anyone's being dishonest, it must be Collins, because it supports your definition as well as mine, as I clearly linked to.

[Lemonvariable72]

No Vinny, the first Collins dictionary definition listed. Linked here. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/diction...olicy=true what I wonder is why are you being clearly dishonest.

If anyone's being dishonest, it must be Collins, because it supports your definition as well as mine, as I clearly linked to.

Ahh so how do we determine who is right?

---

After all it appears dictionary.com and the oxford dictionary use our definition as well.

[Esquilax]

When the definition of your belief doesn't match the dictionary, it's time to consider picking a new word to name your belief.

I recommend agnosticism, because it is essentially the same as "lacks belief in God."

I mean, doesn't it strike you as questionable that you're basically trying to redefine a word so you can apply it to yourself?

Doesn't it strike you as questionable that just a post ago you were telling me you just wanted us to examine our beliefs as much as we want theists to, and now you just seem to care about definitions?

And frankly, I find it particularly interesting that you'll give us all such a hard time over the definition of atheism, and then stop dead at even looking at the definition of agnosticism, which in the beginning, was a rejection of knowledge of the spiritual or mystic.

This puts us in a fun little double whammy for you, where on the first count, you're guilty of using a definition of a word that's changed from its initial usage, and therefore have no grounds to be bitching at us for doing the same with atheism, but now that you're educated on what the coiner of the word originally meant- since you're so down on changing the definitions of words- you'll happily allow us to use the more accurate double-term that we use now: I'm an agnostic atheist, wherein I don't claim absolute knowledge over my disbelief in god. Happy?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

When the definition of your belief doesn't match the dictionary, it's time to consider picking a new word to name your belief.

I recommend agnosticism, because it is essentially the same as "lacks belief in God."

I mean, doesn't it strike you as questionable that you're basically trying to redefine a word so you can apply it to yourself?

Doesn't it strike you as questionable that just a post ago you were telling me you just wanted us to examine our beliefs as much as we want theists to, and now you just seem to care about definitions?

And frankly, I find it particularly interesting that you'll give us all such a hard time over the definition of atheism, and then stop dead at even looking at the definition of agnosticism, which in the beginning, was a rejection of knowledge of the spiritual or mystic.

This puts us in a fun little double whammy for you, where on the first count, you're guilty of using a definition of a word that's changed from its initial usage, and therefore have no grounds to be bitching at us for doing the same with atheism, but now that you're educated on what the coiner of the word originally meant- since you're so down on changing the definitions of words- you'll happily allow us to use the more accurate double-term that we use now: I'm an agnostic atheist, wherein I don't claim absolute knowledge over my disbelief in god. Happy?

Not sure I worded it like that.

But the use of agnosticism, I understood, originated with Huxley. What are you referring to exactly with your "in the beginning"?

For the record, I have no problem with words that change from initial usage. I'm all for it. Rather what I have a problem with is the illegitimate change of meaning. For instance, when people claim the definition they like, or they see commonly is the One True Definitiontm.

---

If anyone's being dishonest, it must be Collins, because it supports your definition as well as mine, as I clearly linked to.

Ahh so how do we determine who is right?

---

After all it appears dictionary.com and the oxford dictionary use our definition as well.

By which one makes more sense.

the claim "does not believe in God/gods" is not only too vague, because it doesn't distinguish between "belief in" versus "belief in the existence of."

Atheism usually refers to the latter, while the former refers to the irreligious, and can include agnostics, deists, pantheists, etc.

In the end, the question is whether you're more interested in getting to the truth, or getting to a definition that's convenient for word-games.