The True Meaning of Atheism
Offline Hello Everyone,
I was having a discussion with a Theist the other day which ended up becoming very interesting. I told them that Atheism was not a "belief" but a lack of "belief", however they responded with a lot of evidence to support that it "was" a belief in the "Non-Exsistance of a god". I've been on this website for a while now, and I'd highly doubt that this webiste is incorrect in their use of the term "atheism". Could you provide me with some evidence supporting the true defintion of "atheism"?
Here is some of the discussion... (Theist writting is underlined)
There are no beliefs shared by atheists. Some atheists may have similar believes or opinions about life, but they are not universal. Atheism is specifically a lack of belief and nothing more.
I have shown how atheism is an active belief that God does not exist. I could easily provide you quotes and names of some of the more prominent atheists but this is not the place for that. Just message me if you would like some.
When the atheists says: “I lack a belief in God” they are actually making an assertion or stating a belief themselves, according to the fundamentals of basic logic, all belief systems start with axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true without proof. This applies to atheism, science, mathematics, and propositional logic itself.The problem with that argument is that once you say “I lack a belief in God,” you have in fact affirmed a religious “belief"
Again, atheism is an active belief that God does not exist. The article ‘atheism’ in Encyclopædia Britannica 1:666, 1992, reflecting the usual definition in philosophy, begins:
‘Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.’
The entry on ‘atheism’ in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, probably the preeminent reference tool for philosophy, begins:
‘Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’
- Login to post comments
To me, saying "there is one true definition of athism" is sort of like saying "there is one true god"
There are both uncommon and common definitions of words, but when we are talking about abstracts such as atheism, by the very nature of it being abstract means it is not concrete and therefore can change. There is nothing wrong with there existing multiple definitions of the word atheism, and there is nothing wrong with the word atheism representing both a lack of belief in god and an affirmation of the nonexistance of god.
Your theist is like other theists who believe in "ultimate truths" and in "the one true X". But there is no ultimate truth of atheism and there is no one true definition of atheism. There are many. I am sure you could privide her with legions of evidence to back up the definition you prefer, but in the end you probably just have to make the point that there is not and does not have to be and probably should not be a "one true definition of atheism"
Furthur, A word is a written, spoken or thought representation of some concept. It is not the word that makes the concept, but the concept that makes the word.
Your resident OTD/S, Christina
A good scientist will always change her mind if new evidence is presented which gives her sufficient reason to change it.
www.ziztur.com
Thanks for responding to my question.
I don't agree with what you have written however. If you are going to use a term to describe yourself, I don't think it would be a good idea to pick a term that can be interpreted in many different ways. If the term “atheist” does not have an exact meaning, then why bother calling yourself an atheist at all?
Then it follows that theism must be the active belief in the non non existence of god.
Which means atheism is then the active belief in the non non non existence of god.
Tell you friend to grow up and stop this childish nonsense, this ridiculous attempt to deny the obvious: Theism is a belief , atheism is a lack of that belief, just as your friend lacks a belief in the god claims of a 1000 other religions.
Some theists simply can't imagine that there are humans in the world who don't consider christianity to the fallback position... they need to embrace reality.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It's not really that simple.
It really depends on what "Atheism" actually means. There is a big difference between saying "I have no belief in a god" and "I believe there is no god".
From this website, I always got the impression that the definition of atheism was the first one. I'd really like to know if there is any evidence that this is the real defintion of "atheism". I'd really appreciate that.
A real easy way to counter this is to ask him what he thinks anti-theism is.
A = no
Anti = against
Theism = belief in god
The bigger problem is that he doesn't seem to know that there is strong and weak atheism. What I think he is trying to do is make the term atheist more then what it is and attaches an idea that doesn't apply to it. Not only does he want you to be making a claim, but he wants you to have faith in it.
What does this do for him though?
1. Shifts the burden of proof.
2. Allows him to use faith as evidence when you ask him for proof of his claim. (that and makes him feel better about not having a good reason for his belief)
The only proof you need is the word, but here is a link that has a few examples of other dictionaries. Also here is something prefixes. You might also get something out of 'Am I Agnostic or Atheist?'.
Thanks Voiderest,
That’s really great information.
Both theistic and atheistic thinkings are beliefs. The difference is what the belief is in. You can believe that nothing exists. Since you can't prove this scientifically through experiments, data, and other such things, it's a belief.
The other difference is the belief structure. Athiests simply have the belief that there is no god. Simple and elegant. Theists usually have a belief structure similar to...
Really? What does the belief of atheism entail?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Some refer to these two positions as "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", respectively.
I think many users of this site, including me, would identify ourselves as weak atheists.
Although it varies, just like theistic thinking, the belief in no god would be it. While each atheist (just like theists) have different beliefs inside of this belief (imagine that), it all jumps back to the belief that there is or isn't a God.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
Crimson you might want to look at that prefix link a posted and google weak atheism...
Which is why it varies, just like the definition of God to a theist.
The core part of being an atheist, both weak and strong, is the lack of a belief.
"Both theistic and atheistic thinkings are beliefs. The difference is what the belief is in.
"The core part of being an atheist, both weak and strong, is the lack of a belief."
Did you change your mind?
No more adjectives, fellas.
atheism = atheism
atheist = atheist
Do you have belief in god(s)? Then you are a theist.
Do you lack belief in god(s)? Then you are an atheist.
No more weak, strong, fundamental, black, white, purple, red or whatever.
Why are the adjectives bad?
Because I could say that a weak atheist is merely a person who lacks a belief in god(s) and can't pick up a lot of weight. Do you see how easily it can be distorted?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
No. I don't see what the difficulty is here guys. You can have a belief within a belief. Atheistic thinking is as follows:
1. A lack of belief in a God (which is the belief of the non-existance of a God)
2. A lack of belief in any God presented (which is the belief that there may or may not be a God).
Occam's Razor.
1. A lack of belief in a god.
2. A lack of belief in any god presented.
It slices. It dices. It simplifies.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
LOL
Is it possible for an atheist to believe in the supernatural (like ghosts and an afterlife) without believing in a god? This thought just occurred to me. I would think, by definition, no, but I'd like to hear what others say.
Isn't a belief in non-existence a waste of energy?
Without proof of existence, non-existence is self-evident
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
This is where the language seems to become really tricky. The non-existence of something cannot be self evident as something can not not exist. If it is something, then it exists. So to say that non-existence is self evident makes no sense. It attempts to use non-existence in a way that must bestow upon it concepts we have for things that exist which creates serious problems.
What theists, and some atheists, seem not to understand about one being an atheist is that the position really has no belief of its own, weak or strong, positive or negative. I can never consider the existence of a god or gods and my position is no different than it is if I see no evidence and therefor never form a belief in a god or gods, or if I realize at some point that the belief I once held in a god or gods is completely unsupported. In all of these scenarios I end up in the same place, lacking a god belief; atheist without holding a positive belief in that there is no god.
Does this necessarily mean I think it is possible a god could exist? Not necessarilly. One who has never heard of a god certainly need not entertain the idea that a god might exist, one who does not understand what is supposedly being denoted by the term god need not either, and one who sees no evidence really need not entertain the idea as well*. In no way is faith necessary for these people to be strong atheists.
*There is no requirement for one to tentatively accept a concept simply because it has been introduced and to say that not doing so requires faith is to abuse the word faith.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
This is interesting. How can you HAVE a LACK of something? Isn't that like possesing a hole (D&D nerds: don't say it.
) or -3 Cheerios? Why can't people be arrested for possession of no stolen money?
Also, ask for the quotes. You will probably find out they are misunderstanding them.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Actually by definition, yes. I'd wonder why they don't apply the same kind of logic to ghosts as they do god, but then again not everyone comes to an idea through logic...
Let me be a little bit more exact, since there is apparently some grey area.
Faith is the belief of something without factual evidence/proof/anything. It's what drives religion.
Belief is a little harder to define, as it supports a wide variety of things. So, instead of using the word God, I will use a Unicorn.
Now, we have no evidence of a Unicorn ever existing, however, a lack of evidence is not the evidence of nonexistance. Unicorns could, or could have, existed... just like Big Foot.
There are people who believe in the Unicorn, mainly little kids. They believe in something that does not exist. We, as rational thinkers, believe that such an animal doesn't/never has existed because of things like science, critical thinking, and common sense.
This exact thing can be applied to aliens. Ask people if they believe in aliens and they will say "Yes, I believe aliens exist" or "No, I don't believe aliens exist." They have a belief in something that they do not believe exists.
Again, this is common sense. The definition of the word belief that I've seen most of you use is an incorrect definition of the word belief which ties in with faith.
Belief is an (for lack of a better word) entity inside of faith. It's a required step to have faith in something (a humans abilities, a god, etc). The difference is that you don't have to have faith to believe in something.
When I use the word belief, I do not infer the word faith as they are, in fact, two seperate things.