Even EvilBible correctly defines Atheism

L

lixluke

Refined Reinvention
Valued Senior Member
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.
Click to expand...
The above was not written by CS, but CS fully supports it.

1. The terms "absence of belief" and "lack of belief" are pointless. Nobody uses them for anything. Real Atheists do not give these terms any credibility. Mickeymouse Atheists came up with these phrases to make themselves feel better.

2. The "A" in atheism can easily be defined as without. Mickeymouse atheists take it to mean without the belief in God. This is a reasonably plausible definition, but not the original intent of the word. The real connotation for "Atheism" is actually meant to mean that the universe is without any God. Meaning that God does not exist. While a theist maintains that God does exist, the "A" in front of the word means that God does not exist. Mickeymouse atheists have changed the connotation to garble up the real definition of "atheism".

3. A disbelief on God is the opposite of the belief in God. It is the belief that there is no God.
A disbelief is not: "lack of belief" or "absense of belief".
 
Lixlux,

Disbelief is not the same thing as believing something is false if one adopts a rational perspective.

Here we can describe rational belief and irrational belief. I.e. one perspective has factual support and the other does not.

If a proposal does not have factual support, i.e. is technically irrational, then there is no reason for a rational person to adopt a belief that the proposition has merit or truth. This is not the same thing as believing the proposal is false.

To adopt a rational belief that a proposition is false one must also provide factual support for that position.

If one simply does not see a reason to believe something due to an absence of facts then it DOES NOT follow that they believe it is false unless they have factual support for that position.

If I claim I am wearing a black shirt what would you believe? Since you have no factual support for a yes or no position your only rational choice is to admit you don’t know. There is no reason to take either side.

The issue of current atheistic thinking is largely identical to the black shirt anecdote. Religionists over the past millennia or so have maligned those who do not accept popular beliefs in deities and have defined for themselves that atheism means a belief in non-existence. In these more enlightened times those who find theistic claims not credible have adopted the rational perspective and definition of atheism of the largely neutral position.

That you continue to very irritatingly insist that the archaic definitions are correct simply shows you do not appreciate the changes that have happened in the atheistic community during this past century. Meanings of words are continually changing as society changes. To continue to insist that an outdated definition is correct is simply naive.

Bring yourself up to date and move on. The atheistic community has defined atheism to mean an absence of belief while some atheists may also choose to insist that god(s) do not exist.

That is simply the state of play at this time – deal with it.
 
Godless said:
Hmmm perhaps a video will help Cris, this guy explains what is an atheist quite well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncCNwbb5Jc
Click to expand...
That video got shut off right when that moron brought said "Does that mean you have to belive 100% that there is no God? No."

While that I was reaching for my mouse, that moron brought up the Mickeymouse term: Strong Atheist.
You video is wack.

ATHEISM IS 100% BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD.




Cris said:
Disbelief is not the same thing as believing something is false if one adopts a rational perspective.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.
Disbelief = Denial of God = Atheism.

1. Disbelief means I do not believe in God, but I also do not have to be 100% certain there is no God. WRONG.

2. Disbelief means that I believe 100% that there is no God. RIGHT.

3. Youd definitions for disbelief and atheism are not what atheism really means. They are a definition internet meme definitions.
 
I agree.

1. Disbelief means I do not believe in God, but I also do not have to be 100% certain there is no God.

2. Disbelief means that I believe 100% that there is no God.



There is no problem with the logic behind definition #1.
There is no problem with the logic behind definition #2.
#1 just doesn't have validity in common real world use. It is an internet meme definition created by kindergarten mickeymouseatheists
In the real world, when real atheists use the terms atheism, disbelief, denial etc., they are refering to definition #1.
 
Actually the question is not in disbelief its in character. Think about what point you are arguing and then decide if it is relevant to your ultimate motive on this website.

For instance mine is to shine light on subjects that actually matter, and not to argue tiny tidbits of heresy that ultimately serve nothing in the overal progression or well being of man/woman kind.

Best of luck with your endeavors.
 
spidergoat said:
It means whatever we say it means.
Click to expand...

You are correct, sir. Words are defined by consensus.

A word is like a bottle, its meaning the drink contained inside. You use a word to convey its meaning, just like you use the bottle to hold a drink before you serve it. Arguing over the definition of a word is like saying that one particular drink should or shouldn't be contained in one particular bottle.

Who cares what bottle holds what drink? Forget the bottle. It has no intrinsic value. The drink is what will quench your thirst and give you the pleasure of its taste.
 
Lixluke - you can either choose to use words correctly - or choose to use whatever interpretation of those words you want.

Just don't be surprised if other people choose to use words correctly and therefore clash with your interpretation.

You are also one of many many people who continue to incorrectly classify Agnosticism on the same line, usually as a "middle point" between Theism and Atheism.
THIS IS NOT CORRECT.
There are two lines - the Theism / Atheism line (belief in God or no belief in God) and the Agnostic line (your stance on the available knowledge with God).

If you fail to see the difference between these two lines then please refrain from discussing this topic further, as you will merely continue to go round and round in the circles you are treading, wearing down the patience of those that bother reading your posts, posts that will soon become covered in drivel as you spout the same rubbish without providing anything new or useful.
 
Either cite evidence that I said any of those things or get lost for lack of ability to use any sense.
 
I don't see the problem here.

If Coolskill/Lixluke wants to think that most atheists are agnostic, then fair enough.

That also means that most theists are agnostic, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top