Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

[Cris]

Some years back it seemed like a good idea to establish what is meant by “atheism” and I started a thread that is referenced in the forum “stickies”. The idea was that we would stop the bickering, misunderstandings, misquotes, incorrect assumptions, accusations, and disagreement of what is an atheist.

Well, it didn’t work and even now the forum displays a whole set of all the variations of what people think atheism means. Some people have become so disconcerted with all the versions that they invented yet another term to avoid the issues altogether, i.e. Brights; hmm, that seemed to just cause another set of controversies. I somewhat like the idea but I just cannot bring myself to call myself a bright; it just feels so odd.

I’d like to avoid labels altogether and I’ve been trying but labels do have their uses and perhaps the atheist label has value and can be used to start useful discussions, even if at the start it is to describe what the term means. That in itself will lead into issues of evidence or lack thereof, etc.

So here is a new attempt at defining atheism, or rather new here but is itself well established and supported by an authoritative body, i.e. The American Atheists - http://www.atheists.org/

I’d like to recommend that this site/forum adopt this position as the authoritative meaning of atheism and we debate according to this established definition. Discussion is of course is welcome and expected on this point.

But first I did a web search on “what does atheism mean” and received this list. There were some other references to rock music etc, that I have removed. I have also removed the URL links. You can do your own search if you want to follow them

Definitions of atheist on the Web:

someone who denies the existence of god
related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence ...

A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods; A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the ...

atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God

atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods

An Atheist is a member of the religion that teaches that God does not exist; moreover and Atheist is someone who is convinced that God does not exist.

As used by most self-claimed atheists in means lack of belief in an organized religion. In the dictionary, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. ...

One who rejects or is ignorant of theism.

atheism - Atheists In modern times, those who do not accept the monotheistic Christian God or any god. It formerly signified those who did not believe in the accepted divinity or divinities of the State or populace.

atheism - A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]

end of list

Depending on your respective or bias the term can range from a fundamentalist religion to one of mere skeptiscm.

Here is how AA defines atheism –

This is the article from the website and I encourage you to read the full article. http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism

Some essential extracts –

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.

Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God" and/or "denial of God." Some dictionaries go further and say that atheism is "wickedness," "sinfulness," "heathenism," "paganism," and "immorality." Some dictionaries even say that atheism is the "doctrine that there is no God." At least The American Heritage ® Dictionary says "God and gods" after the word "doctrine," but that does not detract from the fact that use of the word doctrine is incorrect.

The fact that the dictionary's definition uses the phrase "there is no God" betrays the theistic influence in defining the word atheism. If dictionaries did not contain such influence, then the definition would read, "A belief that there are no gods." The use of god in singular form, with a capital G, is indicative of Christian influence.

In addition, using words like "doctrine" and "denial" betray the negativity seen of atheists by theistic writers. Atheism does not have a doctrine at all and atheists certainly do not "deny" that gods exist. Denial is the "refusal to believe." Atheism does not "know there is a god but refuse to believe in him" (or her). That would be like saying that you know Big Foot exists but you refuse to believe in him. If the evidence of gods was insurmountable and provable, and atheists still refused to believe, then that would be an act of denial.

Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion.

Finally to those who insist that atheism means a belief that a god or gods do not exist. This is not atheism, understand this and move on. There will be atheists who do make this assertion and they must justify their claims and debate accordingly in those specific instances. But be sure this is not the modern day current atheist thinking or the mainstream authoritative position. Continuing to insist is futile.

So now to Agnosticism. This is more complex and I firstly quote the AA article for you to read before discussion - http://www.atheists.org/Agnosticism:_The_Basis_for_Atheism

Some brief relevant highlights –

The essential idea here is that Agnosticism is THE BASIS FOR ATHEISM, NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO IT.

Neither dictionaries nor common usage reflect Huxley's intent in coining the term. His original formulation of the concept goes as follows:

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty".

In this characterization, which we can take as authoritative, there is no mention of belief in general or of religion in particular. Rather, it addresses what we should and can claim to know. It is akin to skepticism in the less extreme sense: not that it is impossible to have knowledge or that we have none but that we should not claim to have knowledge that we do not have.

There may still be those who call themselves "Agnostics" as if that names their position or frees them from the necessity of taking a position. But Agnosticism does not invite you to suspend judgment; it invites you to reach judgment in full light of the facts and the logic and to stand by it. And, as the old adage goes, if you don't take a position, then you are taking a position - a position against. If you are not actively a Theist, you are passively an Atheist. If you are waiting to believe, you are not believing now.

 

[OriginalBiggles]

The following definitions are taken from my COD

Doctrine; n. What is taught, body of instruction; religious, political, scientific, etc., belief, dogma or tenet.

Conviction; n. Act of convincing; settled belief.

Convince; v.t., Firmly persuade. Produce in person a moral conviction.

I am prepared to put forward for examination and criticism my own definition, the way I view and live ATHEISM.
It is derived from one of the definitions put here by Cris.

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist.
However, I would change "position" to "conviction".
It would then read; Atheism is the conviction that deities do not exist.
This is OK as far as it goes. But deities DO EXIST..........in the minds of the faithful. So I would add to the definition allowing for this by proposing;
Atheism is the conviction that deities do not exist except as figments of the human imagination [or the human capacity for fantasy/the fantastic].

An explanatory note may follow; Atheists hold implacably to the scientific method as being the only accurate means of describing, defining and investigating all of existence.

IMHO, anything that allows even the suggestion of equivocation dilutes and inevitably invalidates the implacable conviction in my proposed definition. Personally, I cannot give allegiance to any definition of the kind that panders to a possibility of equivocation in the stance of the atheist.
And my reason is this; That were science to discover evidences that compelled a belief that deities existed, then that discovery immediately strips said deities of all that defines them as deities. They become another feature of the natural world that is the realm of science.
It can be seen that accusations of closed-mindedness fail, for the arguments put forward by theists are no more valid than those put forward by atheists accusing theists of the same bias.

I have proposed at another site that the fundamental core of my atheism rests upon the entirety of existence being of godless origin [there being no other word descriptive of a godless state for all existence], pristine in its components of physics, chemistry, space and the laws that govern. Such was and is the prime and original condition of our Universe. One who holds to these convictions I have named a PRIME and his conviction, PRIMISM. Gods arose in the mind of a primitive Hominid imagination and became a contributing factor to survival of that Hominid. Religions have gained strength from keeping deeply hidden a primal fear that we are alone in an ineffably vast Universe.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

 

[Cris]

Biggles,

Ok this is great. It highlights many essential points.

Atheism is the conviction that deities do not exist except as figments of the human imagination [or the human capacity for fantasy/the fantastic].

Unfortunately that conflicts with your next statement.

An explanatory note may follow; Atheists hold implacably to the scientific method as being the only accurate means of describing, defining and investigating all of existence.

I would hope that thinking atheists would follow that line and in terms of using agnosticism as the foundation for atheism then this should be the standard.

Science means knowledge, and is not concerned with things that are not knowledge. Science is not in the business to declare things that are not known or do not exist. Such things are simply irrelevant. Science is all about the evidence and if there isn’t any then science simply remains silent. The issue becomes irrelevant.

So from that I hope you see that your position is conflicted. If you maintain that the scientific method is the primary method for defining existence then you are at odds with that method by holding a conviction that something does not exist. The scientific method has no interest in declaring things that do not exist.

In summary there is no value to assert that something does not exist. It serves no purpose in this context, and in a strict technical sense, how would you prove it? It is an unnecessary declaration.

In terms of existence in the form of an imaginative concept then we should simply disregard that. A concept of something is not the object of the concept. The concept clearly exists even though its target object may not. Don’t confuse the two paradigms.

IMHO, anything that allows even the suggestion of equivocation dilutes and inevitably invalidates the implacable conviction in my proposed definition. Personally, I cannot give allegiance to any definition of the kind that panders to a possibility of equivocation in the stance of the atheist.

My proposal is that atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. This says nothing about whether gods are possible or not. In the same way that science remains silent on whether something is possible unless there is evidence then a simple declaration of disbelief achieves the same ends. The atheist is simply saying to the theist “you have not presented any convincing evidence to whether gods exist, and by the same token or are even possible”. You need not say more and at the same time retain an absolutely rational and scientific stance on the issue.

I have proposed at another site that the fundamental core of my atheism rests upon the entirety of existence being of godless origin [there being no other word descriptive of a godless state for all existence], pristine in its components of physics, chemistry, space and the laws that govern. Such was and is the prime and original condition of our Universe. One who holds to these convictions I have named a PRIME and his conviction, PRIMISM. Gods arose in the mind of a primitive Hominid imagination and became a contributing factor to survival of that Hominid. Religions have gained strength from keeping deeply hidden a primal fear that we are alone in an ineffably vast Universe.

Well OK, but that is not a scientific perspective. Science is about knowledge and science has not yet been able to establish our origins. What you say might be true even the godless part, or there may be some other alternative that we have yet to imagine. Until science can establish and discover evidence to support your conviction then your stance remains unscientific

 

[Gustav]

So what does it mean to be an atheist as opposed to a theist? Here is a quote from Madalyn Murray O'Hair made at the series of court cases begun in 1959 over the issue of prayer in state schools.

"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."


irrelevant
unwarranted broadening of definition
the forcible imposition of characteristics that have no relevance to the definition

 

[spidergoat]

I like it.

 

[Cris]

gustav,

irrelevant
unwarranted broadening of definition
the forcible imposition of characteristics that have no relevance to the definition

I agree - I'll delete it.

 

[Varda]

But, but, if everything is so clearly defined, how are the theists going to play strawman?

 

[Cris]

Hehe, I'm sure they'll find a way.

 

[S.A.M.]

I notice no one [except for those making sense, like Original Biggles] is using an authorized dictionary. Figures.

From evilbible.com:

It has come to my attention that some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.



Some proponents of this definition can be found in the alt.atheism newsgroup and at the following web sites:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_atheism101.htm

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/questions/atheist.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism



A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.



These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.



But first I will try to illustrate the problem by using three groups of people:

Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).

Group B neither believes that at least one god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.

Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).



It is generally agreed that the people in group A are atheists and the people in group C are not. The main point of disagreement is whether the people in group B are considered atheists or not. The people who want a “lack of belief” definition would define group B as atheists while most people, and all reputable dictionaries, do not. Many of the people who are pushing a “lack of belief” definition call group A “strong atheists” and call group B “weak atheists.



One of the main problems of a “lack of belief” definition is that it is too broad. If someone told you they were an atheist, you would still not know if they were agnostic, undecided, believed that gods don’t exist, or never thought about it. This makes the word nearly useless.



Another problem with a “lack of belief” definition is that it is not accepted by the vast majority of people. I personally don’t know anyone who considers babies atheists because they lack belief in gods. I also don’t know of any people who are agnostic or undecided about the existence of God who call themselves atheists.



The lack of public acceptance for a “lack of belief” definition of “atheism” is reflected in the fact that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. However, this has not kept a few morons from incorrectly claiming that various dictionary definitions have a “lack of belief” definition. On page three I have posted and examined many reputable dictionary definitions. On page four I have posted excerpts from reputable Encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

Don't miss Page Two

Clickable Index to Stupid Arguments:

1) The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".

2) Most dictionaries define "atheism" as a "lack of belief".

3) Most dictionary definitions of "atheism" are wrong because they are written by biased Christians.

4) Only atheists get to define what the word "atheist" means.

5) Most atheists want a "lack of belief" definition.

6) The phrase "Tom does not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "Tom believes that God does not exist."

7) A "lack of belief" definition is useful in debates.

8) All atheists lack a belief in gods so anyone who lacks a belief in gods is an atheist.

 

[OriginalBiggles]

Cris wrote; I would hope that thinking atheists would follow that line and in terms of using agnosticism as the foundation for atheism then this should be the standard.
I must disagree. I see atheism being fundamental to existence. [Having describe PRIMISM, I would prefer to use this term in my arguments and propositions.] If you would suggest agnosticism as THE foundation of atheism then you are pandering to equivocation. Morally and intellectually, it is imposed upon us to be as convinced of our convictions as the faithful are of theirs. Otherwise we are being so open-minded as to be vulnerable to the jibe of "fence-sitter", of having no inviolate core adherence to truth as we see it.

Science means knowledge, and is not concerned with things that are not knowledge. Science is not in the business to declare things that are not known or do not exist. Such things are simply irrelevant. Science is all about the evidence and if there isn’t any then science simply remains silent. The issue becomes irrelevant.
Agnosticism declares that nothing is known or can be known about god or gods. It can be a permanent and implacably held position/conviction. It is not a half-way house for those who haven't yet made up their mind. You seem to be applying a form of agnosticism to science and to this I cannot agree. Atheism/primism is "without god", not "without god, maybe" or "until there is scientific evidence". Your position here is untenable in the light of my reasoning; And my reason is this; That were science to discover evidences that compelled a belief that deities existed, then that discovery immediately strips said deities of all that defines them as deities. They become another feature of the natural world that is the realm of science.
I see nought but undeniable logic here.

So from that I hope you see that your position is conflicted. If you maintain that the scientific method is the primary method for defining existence then you are at odds with that method by holding a conviction that something does not exist.
The only implication one may infer from this passage is that fantasy can be nothing more or less than fantasy. And should fantasy be revealed as something else through application of the scientific method then that "fantasy" is then immediately part of the scientific realm. What other method is seen as a valid means of investigating our world? I get the impression that you want to insure the atheist/prime view against invalidation at every step by introducing a theist or no less than an agnostic contingency.
My view of atheism/primism unequivocally rejects such a view as irreconcilable with the real version as opposed to the equivocation version.

My proposal is that atheism is disbelief in the existence of gods. This says nothing about whether gods are possible or not. In the same way that science remains silent on whether something is possible unless there is evidence.
On the contrary, science is much concerned with predictions for which no evidence exists. Inference and conjecture and prediction encourage the creativity that is at the very cutting edge of the scientific method. The Higgs boson was implied by the need for it to exist. There was no actual evidence of its existence.
Excuse my bluntness, but your proposal carries about as much authority as declaring with regal dignity that atheism is disbelief in the existence of the tooth fairy. For atheism/primism, all deities can have no more standing than Santa Claus, leprechauns, King Kong, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Superman, for each is a figment of human imagination, a fantasy catering to a human need, just as gods are. It can be legitimately posited that all monotheists are atheists to a degree. That is they are atheists in every respect of all gods but one. That is the only distinction between the two. How would you describe their atheism? Would you allow their faith more "leeway" in disbelieving?

The atheist is simply saying to the theist “you have not presented any convincing evidence to whether gods exist, and by the same token or are even possible”.
I am putting my proposition as a positive assertion of atheism/primism and have no problem in borrowing suitable strategems from the advertising industry, just as theists do. I can not impose on my conviction a contrived rectitude that makes me feel warm all over but places my conviction itself at a disadvantage of being branded a fancy form of agnosticism with a defence as powerful as a wet lettuce leaf. Positive atheism or primism is not so compelled and will suffer no such calumnies.

Well OK, but that is not a scientific perspective. [My explanation of a primist view of existence]
Of course it is a scientific perspective. It is subject to scientific scrutiny in every way, to evidence fore and against when presented or discovered. The theist view is not so subject [depending on the brand of theism] or if evidence is presented, ceases to have a raison d'etre for the god's properties are immediately within the purview of science and said god no longer has the ineffability requred of it.

What you say might be true even the godless part, or there may be some other alternative that we have yet to imagine. Until science can establish and discover evidence to support your conviction then your stance remains unscientific.
While it remains open to scientific scrutiny and does not do violence to a law of nature there is nothing unscientific about my proposition. It is in addition compliant with the Principle of Parsimony advanced by William of Ockham. Our understanding of the word SCIENTIFIC is at variance it seems.

SCIENTIFIC; adj. [Of investigations etc.] According to rules laid down in science for testing soundness of conclusions,systematic, accurate; of, used or engaged in, esp. natural science.

When the vast body of knowledge [of science] we have accumulated to date has no item within it that is in direct opposition to my proposition, it can be legitimately asserted that that said proposition is indeed scientific and does no offense to the rules laid down in science for testing soundness of conclusions.
All the evidence so far accumulated has nothing in contradiction of my proposition/hypothesis/prediction.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

 

[Cris]

Sam,

So what's your point? The guy doesn't like the definition of "lack of belief", and his arguments are a little stretched. Other groups do. Who wins? There is no consensus, and each group/organization agrees on a particular usage. I have proposed one here for this forum that's biased towards science and has support from a large Athiest organization.

 

[S.A.M.]

Kinda like intelligent design?

See OriginalBiggles' post for why no one cares what you or your organisation think.

 

[Cris]

Biggles,

If you would suggest agnosticism as THE foundation of atheism then you are pandering to equivocation.

No, I'm using the orginal context intended by Huxley who invented the term. Read the article I referenced that explains agnosticism in this context.

On the contrary, science is much concerned with predictions for which no evidence exists. Inference and conjecture and prediction encourage the creativity that is at the very cutting edge of the scientific method.

Of course creativity and imagination are powerful aspects of scientific discovery. The nature of speculation, the search for evidence, the hypothesis, and perhaps theory, are essential parts of the process. This is the process that forms the basis of our knowledge. But predictions and speculations without supporting evidence is NOT knowledge. Most imaginative speculations are discarded when no evidence can be found to support them. This is good science. But the essential process here is a search for evidence, not in the process of proving something does not exist.

The Higgs boson was implied by the need for it to exist. There was no actual evidence of its existence.

And you are missing the point. A prediction is not knowledge until the evidence is produced. In the early days of modern astronomy several of the outer planets were predicted because of the understanding of gravity. It wasn't until they were observed that we could claim sucessful knowledge.

I agree that theist claims are fantasy, isn't that the primary reason why atheists find the claims unbelievable? I have no dispute over this.

I understand your perpective, you are convinced gods do not exist. Fine with me. But that cannot be a scientific perspective. Science can only be silent on the matter since there is no evidence on which to operate.

 

[S.A.M.]

Science can only be silent on the matter since there is no evidence on which to operate.

Correct, however science is not religion and religion is not science.

 

[Cris]

biggles,

When the vast body of knowledge [of science] we have accumulated to date has no item within it that is in direct opposition to my proposition, it can be legitimately asserted that that said proposition is indeed scientific and does no offense to the rules laid down in science for testing soundness of conclusions.

This is nonsense. The same can be said about an untold number of things we have yet to imagine or discover. For some you will be correct for others you will be wrong. Science can take no position on things for which there is no evdience.

 

[Cris]

sam,

See OriginalBiggles' post for why no one cares what you or your organisation think.

I'm fine with the few million who take this view.

 

[Cris]

sam,

Correct, however science is not religion and religion is not science.

Ok, so, your point?

 

[Sarkus]

I think I'm mostly with what Cris is proposing.

The way I look at it is that "belief in there being a god" is like wearing a white hat, and "belief in there being no god" is like wearing a black hat.
People can wear a white hat, a black hat, or no hat at all.
And atheism equates to anyone not wearing a white hat.

Surely noone could argue that "not wearing a white hat" is the same as "wearing a black hat"?


But, looking at the origin of the word, it could possibly also be used for someone who merely chose to live their life as though there were no gods, even though they might have believed they existed... being seen as "godless" through their failure to observe the religious rituals etc. This is very much the "denying God" aspect of atheism.
So one could argue that atheism encapsulates all those that merely act as though not wearing a white hat (in the analogy above) even if they might actually own one.

But the modern usage I go with is one who does not wear or even own a white hat.



I would disagree, however, that Agnosticism is THE basis for atheism.
It is A basis for atheism. It is certainly the basis for my atheism, sure, but not everyone's: some atheists are simply not agnostic about their position.

 

[Cris]

Sarkus,

Thanks for the comments.

some atheists are simply not agnostic about their position.

Understood, and I'm sure this is going to be a very frustrating concept to achieve, but the definition of agnosticism here is the one originally formulated by Huxley who coined the term. It has been misued and abused ever sicne with very few understanding what he was attempting to achieve.

Agnosticism (in this context) in essence means - don't claim to know something if the evidence is not present. This is the basis of modern atheism that I am proposing here.

 

[Sarkus]

Okay - I think I see where you're coming from.

The reason one is an atheist (i.e. not a theist) is because there is no evidence to support the existence of God - i.e. agnosticism.

And how far one wants to go down the route of belief in non-existence is irrelevant, as this is superfluous to being an atheist.

Okay - I think I'm with you there, at least as you have defined agnosticism... which I shall now take issue with.

As great minds have previously raised, what you have paraphrased from Huxley is nout more than "intellectual honesty" on a personal level. Huxley himself, I understand, distinguished his idea of agnosticism from mere honesty by saying that an agnostic would hold such metaphysical issues to be fundamentally unknowable.

So, surely one can consider the metaphysical issues to be knowable but still not have the personal evidence to call yourself a theist?

This person would thus be atheist through intellectual honesty without necessarily being agnostic.

However, while I admit I have no direct reference to where Huxley stated that holding the question to be "fundamentally unknowable" was a requirement of his concept of agnosticism (only hearsay that he did), I do find any definition that omits this element to be rather lacking - as agnosticism would then just be, as stated, the same (intellectual) "honesty".
And it just seems unsatisfactory.