Defining atheism

[Reptillian]

A lot of you or some of you are thinking in more black and white terms. Contrary to popular belief, god does not have to mean a consious deity creating miracles and created our own universe. Pantheistic viewpoint dictates that god is essentially the universe itself and it's a viewpoint that have been existing for over 2000 years. There's also the philosophy that god is essentially a energy besides the pantheistic viewpoint and the consious deity viewpoint. Belief and lack of belief can be relativistic to the individual. When you consider the relativistic issue into account, you will acknowledge that some relativistic viewpoint allows for some atheists are theists while some theists are atheists. With all of those being said.

 

Atheism=The relativistic stance in which a individual perceives himself/herself to have the lack of belief in a god.

Agnosticisim=The relativistic stance in which a individual perceives himself/herself to be neutral from a relativistic viewpoint.

Theism=The relativistic stance in which a individual believes the relativistic god/deity.

 

By the way, I'm a ignostic apatheist.

[Joshpantera]

The main atheist organizations are always a good go to source for clarification as well:

 

http://www.freethoug....php?f=5&t=2827

 

The strong or positive view of the word "atheist" is claimed to be defined as, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God(s)" or another one is, "One who denies the existence of God(s)." This is sometimes referred to nowadays as "the new atheism" because it has no historical context - it's a new misguided version of atheism. Probably due to the fact that so many don't understand the proper definition of the word nor its historical context nor its Greek root. Essentially, they're inadvertently attempting to re-define it out of ignorance not realizing this new version is a degeneration. The problem is that these "new atheists" rigidly adhere to this strong/positive stance and they seem to be fundamentalist about it - which may also be referred to as "militant atheism."

 

The negative or weak view of the word "atheist" is defined as one who has, "An absence of belief in god(s)" or "A lack of belief in god(s)." This is the original definition of "atheist." It is historically what "atheist" has always meant and been defined as based on the original Greek root of the word and its history as you will see by reading below. It's quite simple and no changes are necessary.

 

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism

 

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheist

 

So how can the word "atheist" be a defined as a "belief" or "denial" and an "absence of belief" at the same time? Simply put, it can't. It is highly possible that only one of these views is correct. See what you think.

"The 'weak' definition has the greatest historical precedence, it has (in my opinion, and that of Smith) the best etymology, and is the most practical. The term atheist has been widely used as a slur or an epithet to indicate an evil person. Positive Atheism Magazine thinks one of the first steps should be to hammer out a definition for the term atheism and to agree to use it. True, atheism's opponents will continue to abuse and misuse the term atheism in their efforts to refute our position, telling us that an atheist is something other than what we are (usually making us out to be people who hold the "strong" position), and then demanding that we defend this other position. However, the least we atheists can hope for is that we can agree to use the term consistently and then be able to point to that consistent use when defending our position against our opponents. This is why we hold the "weak" position and this is why we so patiently and consistently advocate for that position."

 

http://www.positivea...ail/eml9102.htm

"The AAI (Atheist Alliance International) agrees with you on the definition of atheism. In 2003, we assigned your issue to a committee, which gave the definition of atheism, 'Absence of belief in the existence of any gods.' The committee was to have notified dictionary editors and publishers of this. We feel that, as the world's largest atheist organization, we should hold some sway. Many dictionaries today say that atheists 'deny the existence of God,' which assumes there is a god to deny the existence of. As a mostly-volunteer group, we have not yet gotten the word to all of the dictionaries.

 

I hope you will join the AAI and help us in our quest.

 

Best regards,

 

Bobbie Kirkhart

President

Atheist Alliance International

http://www.Atheistalliance.org

"If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."

 

- "Atheism" By Michael Martin (463)

 

Martin goes on to cite several other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of 'atheism', including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).

 

http://www.infidels....efinitions.html

"What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not 'prove' the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should. But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason. Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity."

 

--"Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies" by George H. Smith, 62-3.

Those Atheists who want to adhere to the "strong" or "positive" definition of the word "atheist" should perhaps consider creating a new word that best describes their position because "atheist" isn't it. The "strong" or "positive" views are an abuse of the word. Although, that abuse largely comes from theists trying to re-define the word by projecting their own desired definition to the word 'atheist.' That way theists can put all atheists into the "strong" or "positive" corner (and attempt to make endless straw man arguments). It's intellectually dishonest and we must not let them do that.

 

Here's another perfect example:

"Some dictionaries define godless as 'wicked', 'immoral'. I don't believe in gods but I am not 'wicked' nor am I 'immoral'. This means that dictionaries are not inerrant. It sounds like the religious society should be blamed for assigning a morally pejorative connotation to an ordinary descriptive adjective."

 

- "Loosing Faith in Faith" page 98

 

http://dictionary.re...earch?q=godless

"If so many atheists and some of their critics have insisted on the negative definition of atheism, why have some modern philosophers called for a positive definition of atheism -- atheism as the outright denial of God's existence? Part of the reason, I suspect, lies in the chasm separating freethinkers and academic philosophers. Most modern philosophers are totally unfamiliar with atheistic literature and so remain oblivious to the tradition of negative atheism contained in that literature."

 

http://www.positivea...it/smithdef.htm

"What Is A Freethinker?"

http://www.ffrf.org/...freethinker.php

 

Theists & atheists, please make the necessary adjustments. It sounds like we need to organize a campaign contacting all the dictionaries and encyclopedias asking for this correction to be made as well. We obviously cannot rely on the theistic community to make these types of corrections for us.

 

Children are a perfect example of having an absence of belief in the concept of God. Belief in a god is something that is taught to them by devotees. No other species seems to hold any belief in the concept of God either.

 

[Adrianime]

Hmm personally I think it is simple.  Atheism is the negation of theism.  Theism being the "belief in the existence of god or gods."  Anything beyond that really should be given a new word.  People try to redefine atheism to be something complex, but it's really very simple.  Just as theism is very simple.  How can a word that specifically means the negation of another (positive) word be much more complex than the definition of the positive word?  People (*ahem* Christians) also try to redefine atheism as a religion.  It especially annoys me when they give atheism a capital A in the middle of a sentence. 

 

Regarding agnosticism.  Growing up I thought of agnostics as reluctant atheists or confused atheists.  But agnosticism and atheism really do exist on a different plane (meaning that agnostic atheist or agnostic theist would be more appropriate than just agnostic).  I think that somebody here mentioned that, but I'm not going to scour the thread for that quote.  Personally I dislike the arguments for agnosticism.  Because honestly nobody REALLY knows anything (we know what we think we have enough evidence to know but NOTHING is 100%).  So yeah for any argument I could say I'm agnostic, instead of actually stating my position.  But how is that helpful? 

 

Back to theism.  You either live your life as if there are gods or you live your life as if there are not.  I completely acknowledge that I cannot disprove a god, but I believe that god doesn't exist, just as much as I believe a ball will fall to the ground if I let go of it.  Why not just say that since I can't disprove it, I should just say I'm agnostic and don't have enough information to determine the answer?  Well because I don't need to sugarcoat it.  Nor do I need to doubt my own perception of the world.  In my perception of the world, a god doesn't make an ounce of sense.  So I don't need to entertain the possibility as if it were valid just because so many people believe in gods.  To me if it is not demonstratable to ANYBODY who wants to and has the means to experience it, then it doesn't need to be considered like other ration assertions.  So just like I'm not agnostic about whether or not there is a duck somewhere that speaks fluent chinese.  I'm not agnostic about theism.  A god to me is just about the least likely thing I can think of.  Even less likely than me suddenly gaining my lifelong desired ability to teleport and deciding to teleport to India.

 

*Whew*, so I just go back from India.  I guess I was wrong after all.  Maybe I should really give this god idea a second consideration?

[Thonord]

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe atheism exists.

 

Its not a club like the 10's of thousands of religious beliefs.

Its not a belief, its a lack of belief in a God, but I do'nt replace him with some - thing/body else.. 

 

I believe christians exist, because I can see them and their ignorance. I think they are a burden.

 

My lack of belief in a god is probably the only thing I have in common with other ateists.

 

Do you think atheisM exist>?