True Definition of Atheism

[Aedus]

http://kynaros.blogspot.com/2009/11/true-definition-of-atheism.html

A rather blatant article, but some of you folks might find it useful.

(Edited to revive broken link. -- R)

[Will]

Atheism is a lack of belief.

[Recusant]

Hello, Aedus.  I hope you join in the discussions here.  Do you personally subscribe to the thoughts expressed in the linked blog?

[LoneMateria]

A rather blatant article, but some of you folks might find it useful.

From this perspective that sounds condescending and arrogant.  And the article is even more so.  The fist paragraph gives away how ignorant the writer is on the subject.  How many sects of Buddhism believe in at least 1 god?  One sect ... there are many more ... every Buddhist that isn't in that one sect of Buddhism is an atheist.  They do not believe in a god or do not have confidence in a god.  Let me break this down:

Theism as is defined by the Oxford dictionary:

theism
/theeiz’m/

  • noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Compare with DEISM.

  â€" DERIVATIVES theist noun theistic /theeistik/ adjective.

  â€" ORIGIN from Greek theos ‘god’.

Atheism is without-theism or not-theism.  It is simply the lack in a belief of a god or gods.  The author of this article you provided is arrogant and misinformed.  People don't need to believe there is no god to be an atheist, and they don't need to even know of the idea of a god to be an atheist (babies).  If they are not theists (with the exception of deism) then they are atheists ... period ... end of story.  Sorry to shit on your ego but a reality check is in order.

I did find that article amusing that the "agnostics" (atheists who don't have the balls to call themselves atheists) are trying to define atheism for everyone else.  The writer knows when posting this article that he is not in the majority with his definition ... but he thinks he should be ... he thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong ... I hear that shit from theists all the time.  And he pulled it off so much like a theist its scary ... he keeps a smug / intellectually superior attitude the whole time and isn't about to change his mind no matter what.  He doesn't even provide real reasons for his beliefs ... he found 1 dictionary he likes and found another which was based off of it and says, "see i'm right".  Its so pathetic.

[Whitney]

http://kynaros.blogspot.com/2009/11/true-definition-of-atheism.html

A rather blatant article, but some of you folks might find it useful.

I found it arrogant and incorrect.

edit: Btw, I'll thank you to use your own words if you decide to participate on the forum.  Posting a link with a short comment is not only spammish but in this case is an example of non-religious preaching; both of which are against HAF rules.

[Aedus]

I'm not sure what else to call the article other than blatant, but I thought the information there was valuable, since so many people hold to this contradictory lack of belief nondefinition. It should be noted that the first 8 arguments were written by an atheist, and the rest of the article written by an agnostic (which I am also).

Atheism is without-theism or not-theism.

No it's not. Read stupid argument #1. If you have alternate etymologies then you need to explain why I should trust you over the reputable dictionaries listed.

It is simply the lack in a belief of a god or gods.

Wrong. Read stupid argument #9 and 10.

Stupid Argument #9: "Denial" and "Disbelief" in Definitions of Atheism Includes All the Weak and Strong Forms of Atheism

In the face of a proposition, denial and disbelief are not the only two options. What if you don't care about the proposition? What if you aren't convinced that the proposition is both true or not true? What if you haven't even heard the proposition? Need I go on? The idiocy of this argument speaks for itself really. Lack of Belief =/= Disbelief.

Stupid Argument #10: If I have Disbelief, I Lack the Ability to Believe, therefore Atheism is Lack of Belief.

This is obviously wrong because disbelief and lack of belief are not the same thing. When someone is faced with disbelief, he cannot believe that something is true. When someone has a lack of belief, there are many other positions he could take, as described in the last argument i.e. he could not be convinced that the proposition is either true or not true.

If they are not theists (with the exception of deism) then they are atheists ... period ... end of story.  Sorry to shit on your ego but a reality check is in order.

I agree that a reality check is in order - go look at any dictionary and notice how none of them use a lack of belief definition. Every dictionary defines atheism as disbelief or denial of deities. First let's define disbelief:

Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
Disbelief - the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Let me ask you a question: how does a person who has never heard of the concept of God have "disbelief" in him? I await your bizarre and otherworldly explanation.

(atheists who don't have the balls to call themselves atheists)

I'm sure you find it inconceivable that not everyone agrees with dogmatic atheists and their made-up definitions but there's really no conspiracy theory behind the fact that militant atheists are largely an embarrassment for all godless people (rambling angrily against religion, protesting Christmas - probably b/c they didn't get any gifts, following around Jehovah's witnesses on camera, and other random acts of douchebaggery).

are trying to define atheism for everyone else.

Perhaps atheists should have picked a position that actually represents their beliefs instead of just hopping onto the atheist bandwagon?

The writer knows when posting this article that he is not in the majority with his definition

Actually he kind of is. Nobody but atheist blogs/websites and the bullshit peer-edited places like wikipedia use this retarded definition. It doesn't make any sense because babies, agnostics, and noncognivists don't consider themselves atheists. Only people who self-identify themselves as atheist use this definition because they want to shift the burden of proof to theists in order to make up for their all-around lack of debate skills.

... but he thinks he should be ... he thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong ... I hear that shit from theists all the time.  And he pulled it off so much like a theist its scary ... he keeps a smug / intellectually superior attitude the whole time and isn't about to change his mind no matter what.  He doesn't even provide real reasons for his beliefs ... he found 1 dictionary he likes and found another which was based off of it and says, "see i'm right".  Its so pathetic.

ROFL!

Yeah, poor guy, with countless references to definitions and etymologies of reputable dictionaries on top of the links to professional articles. I bet he wishes he had the volume of evidence that atheists have (from what I can gather so far is nothing, save the irrational belief that the atheist position should be expanded to include more people so that atheists can avoid burden of proof.

[Whitney]

Aedus, in your opinion, is there a word for people who do not have a belief in a god yet also do not claim to know a god doesn't exist?

[Aedus]

Aedus, in your opinion, is there a word for people who do not have a belief in a god yet also do not claim to know a god doesn't exist?

Non Cognitivists on the issue of God.

[Will]

It's interesting to debate a dictionary, but ultimately it feels like it may be a waste of time. For the time being, atheist simply means a disbelief in god or gods. It can range from the very agnostic to the very gnostic.

[Aedus]

It's interesting to debate a dictionary, but ultimately it feels like it may be a waste of time. For the time being, atheist simply means a disbelief in god or gods. It can range from the very agnostic to the very gnostic.

So who decides these things? You? Other atheists? (who only make up a pathetic 5% of nonreligious people) I think we should go by what the vast majority of people believe - common usage.

[Will]

So who decides these things?

How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?

You?

No, I tend to get drunk with power. I can just see it now...

Christian
Pronunciation: \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Function: noun
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of mythological character Jesus Christ

Republican
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpə-bli-kən\
Function: noun
1 : one that blindly follows insane pundits; see sheeple

[Tanker]

Regardless of a words roots its deffinition it is defined by it's common usage. If Atheism had originaly meant in latin "strongest belief in god possible" but was currently used to represent an lack of belief in god then that is it's current deffinition.

As an example a will use the word 'bad' we all know that the word 'bad' means "not good in any manner or degree" as the first deffinition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad and most of the following deffinitions are similar however if you scroll down to 36 you will see "Slang. outstandingly excellent; first-rate: He's a bad man on drums, and the fans love him." depsite the word bad meaning not good in most cases, there is a usage of it does specificly mean good because that is a common usage. Atheism means "a disbelief in god or gods" because that how it's used and what its understood to mean.

Spliting hairs and using semantics does not change a deffinition.

[Whitney]

It's interesting to debate a dictionary, but ultimately it feels like it may be a waste of time. For the time being, atheist simply means a disbelief in god or gods. It can range from the very agnostic to the very gnostic.

So who decides these things? You? Other atheists? (who only make up a pathetic 5% of nonreligious people) I think we should go by what the vast majority of people believe - common usage.

If we go with common usage of the masses...atheist means devil worshiper.

btw, quit using abrasive language...it makes you look like an ass.

[LoneMateria]

For some reason I doubt your sincerity to an actual discussion.

I'm not sure what else to call the article other than blatant, but I thought the information there was valuable, since so many people hold to this contradictory lack of belief nondefinition. It should be noted that the first 8 arguments were written by an atheist, and the rest of the article written by an agnostic (which I am also).

This article is hostile ... not blatant.  It doesn't matter that "an atheist" wrote the arguments.  An atheist can be wrong just like everyone else ... it wouldn't be the first time we've seen personal opinion and belief defended when the person is wrong.  I noticed you were an "agnostic" and thats why I added the agnostic comments in my discussion... I'd contend you are an agnostic atheist but thats a subject for a different thread.  Anyway I was pretty convinced u were going to hit and run like most others who post thoughtless links.  It's a nice surprise ^_^

No it's not. Read stupid argument #1. If you have alternate etymologies then you need to explain why I should trust you over the reputable dictionaries listed.

You are referring to one dictionary and another dictionary that was based on the first one ... you ignored this part from my previous thread.  This is a poor argument from authority at best.  Because a word is in a dictionary doesn't mean its a good definition or even accurate.  How is the dictionary you put forth as accurate in this area different then say the Webster's 1828 Dictionary?  Here is Atheism as defined by the 1828 Webster's dictionary and its as wrong as the definition from your dictionary.  Please show me why I should accept your dictionary over another one.

A'THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.

Wrong. Read stupid argument #9 and 10.

Read Straw Man argument.

I agree that a reality check is in order - go look at any dictionary and notice how none of them use a lack of belief definition. Every dictionary defines atheism as disbelief or denial of deities. First let's define disbelief:

Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
Disbelief - the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Let me ask you a question: how does a person who has never heard of the concept of God have "disbelief" in him? I await your bizarre and otherworldly explanation.

First let's define a few things by the oxford dictionary:

lack
  • noun the state of being without or not having enough of something.

  • verb (also lack for) be without or deficient in.

  â€" ORIGIN perhaps partly from Low German lak ‘deficiency’, Dutch laken ‘lack’
----------------------------
belief
  • noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith.
----------------------------
God
  • noun 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and supreme ruler of the universe. 2 (god) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes. 3 (god) a greatly admired or influential person. 4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theatre.
---------------------------

I'm sure you can put these together.  Let me ask you something ... are there atheists who don't lack a belief in a god(s)? All atheists lack a belief in a god and all who lack a belief in a god are atheists.  No exceptions i'm afraid.

Now onto your last statement which is amusing at best.  You obviously cannot disbelieve in something that you know nothing about.  If I accepted your definition (which I don't) then i'd agree with you that babies aren't atheists ... they aren't theists either ... which leads to the question what are they?  I don't think deism, pantheism, or agnosticism work.  With reference to their view about a deity what would you label them?  Again though you need to demonstrate why mine is wrong and the straw men used on the website aren't going to convince me ... sorry

I'm sure you find it inconceivable that not everyone agrees with dogmatic atheists and their made-up definitions but there's really no conspiracy theory behind the fact that militant atheists are largely an embarrassment for all godless people (rambling angrily against religion, protesting Christmas - probably b/c they didn't get any gifts, following around Jehovah's witnesses on camera, and other random acts of douchebaggery).

I'd prefer if you'd stay on topic and not throw Red Herrings my way ... if you want to talk about this do it in another thread and before you start talking about dogmatic atheists look up the word dogma first.


[quote"asshat"]
Perhaps atheists should have picked a position that actually represents their beliefs instead of just hopping onto the atheist bandwagon?
[/quote]

And you are trying to chastise me for my definition of atheism ... seems you just changed the definition yourself to a choice.  How exactly do you choose to believe?  I don't know about you but I can't make myself believe Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy are real ... can you?  Is the realization that they don't exist a choice?  

Actually he kind of is. Nobody but atheist blogs/websites and the bullshit peer-edited places like wikipedia use this retarded definition. It doesn't make any sense because babies, agnostics, and noncognivists don't consider themselves atheists. Only people who self-identify themselves as atheist use this definition because they want to shift the burden of proof to theists in order to make up for their all-around lack of debate skills.

My mistake through further research it seems you are right that this is a majority definition (however i'm not sure how high the majority is but it doesn't invalidate my previous arguments).  So basically people you don't like use that definition so it must be wrong is the argument here?  

Does a baby realize it's a baby?  Does it consider itself to be a baby?  Does that mean its not a baby?

So with the burden of proof issue you seem to be bring forth (and I apologize in advance if I go OT) are you saying that the burden of proof should be on atheists and not theists always?  If I were to tell you I had a family of magical leprechauns living in my basement would I be required to prove it or would you have to disprove it?  The theists are the ones who make the claim that there is some sky daddy hurting people they don't like and helping them and will give them everything they want of they think hard enough that daddy is their master and if you don't think hard enough you will not only get tortured forever but that you deserve it and its a good thing.   Do I need to prove to them that they are wrong or do they need to prove to me that they are right?  If I were to go around saying that there is no god then the burden of proof is on me .... when you make a claim that something is true the burden of proof is on you.  If you doubt the claim you are not responsible for demonstrating why it's not true.

Yeah, poor guy, with countless references to definitions and etymologies of reputable dictionaries on top of the links to professional articles. I bet he wishes he had the volume of evidence that atheists have (from what I can gather so far is nothing, save the irrational belief that the atheist position should be expanded to include more people so that atheists can avoid burden of proof.

I've already pointed out why a dictionary isn't an authority figure.  From what you've already said the guy is an atheist ... tsk tsk ... inconsistent today aren't ya.  Finally you sum this up with your ignorance on the burden of proof.  The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. If I were to claim that there is no god then the burden of proof would be on me ... just like with agnostics who make the claim that nothing can be known concerning God ... then you need to back your claim up.  It's not too hard.

In conclusion your arguments are poor and your standards suck.  Your ignorance about what atheists are has been demonstrated numerous times.  You should leave the defining to us because you have no idea who we are and your post is evidence for that.

[LoneMateria]

It's interesting to debate a dictionary, but ultimately it feels like it may be a waste of time. For the time being, atheist simply means a disbelief in god or gods. It can range from the very agnostic to the very gnostic.

So who decides these things? You? Other atheists? (who only make up a pathetic 5% of nonreligious people) I think we should go by what the vast majority of people believe - common usage.

If we go with common usage of the masses...atheist means devil worshiper.

btw, quit using abrasive language...it makes you look like an ass.

I don't think its just a look.