But, again, what does count? It is clear that their dictionaries did not count, for you. I would say also that the way native speakers and writers use the term also does not count, since they do use it to mean both. Etymology leads to all sorts of problems since words change meaning over time and none of us only uses words according to their etymological roots - we would be very confusing speakers and writers. So how does one determine what a word means?
Isn't being an Atheist a religion?
- Thread starter iHaveNoIdea
- Start date
But, again, what does count? It is clear that their dictionaries did not count, for you. I would say also that the way native speakers and writers use the term also does not count, since they do use it to mean both. Etymology leads to all sorts of problems since words change meaning over time and none of us only uses words according to their etymological roots - we would be very confusing speakers and writers. So how does one determine what a word means?
Well, I guess I can weigh in. I would say meaning is use. And current use - and use going back a rather long time, according the the OED - is that atheist covers both those who believe there is no god and those who lack a belief in God. It is a bit sloppy and leads to confusion.
Of course, language is like that all over place.
Of course, language is like that all over place.
Good thing we have a label defined as "doesn't believe that X is true," then. That should handle everyone that doesn't believe that X is true.
And since those who aren't "with God" are, by definition, "Godless," that doesn't present much of a practical problem.
Now, as far as telling people what they can and cannot label something: that you really cannot do.
Oh? And where in their consideration of the universe can God be found, then?
If the answer is "nowhere," in what sense are they not "Godless?"
First of all, the standard usage and in legitimate dictionaries, atheism is the belief that there is not God. Atheism is not a lack of belief. A few people bantering that it should be used to include those who lack the belief do not count.
Second, what is relevant is that those who lack the belief cannot be grouped together with those who have the belief. You cannot call those who lack the belief theist. Nor can you call them atheists. It is not mainstream usage and there is no reason to use it in that sense.
Not necessarily. Not everybody who doesn't believe there is a God believes there is no God. Not everybody who believes there is no God believes there is a God.
God exists - True or False? Those who do not take the "False" position are not Godless/atheist.
This just ain't the case. I once looked into this. The OED and several other well respected dictionaries included both meanings.
But it's not just a few.
But it is the mainstream usage. Words are not always logical. Think of the way anarchist is used. Most actual anarchists have a complex idea of how society would look and are not interested in creating chaos. Nevertheless people who believe in a radically decentralized society and people who want to create political or other kinds of chaos are lumped together.
More trolling.
Typical Lixluke response: if it doesn't agree with my personal opinion it's wrong.
Just because it doesn't fit into your cosy, self-imposed (and specious) set of "facts" does not make it "bootleg".
The sooner you get a clue about reality (and a job for that matter) the better off you'll be.
Which reputable dictionary defines atheism as "lack of belief"?
There is a pissed off atheist at evilbible.com who wrote four pages of a rant against the definition based on the evidence that it is not supported by any authoritative sources
emphasis from original source
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
To base argument on these semantic games is both disingenuous and trite. It's an attempt to control an argument by forcing the definitions to support your conclusion and avoids real discussion entirely.
Agnosticism is not an ontological position regarding the existence of god(s) but an epistemological position regarding knowledge about god(s).
One may be epistemologically agnostic regarding god and also ontologically atheistic regarding gods. These are not contradictory as they pertain to different things (knowing and being respectively).
~Raithere
Let's start looking at this person's own sources - and to save space I am just highlighting the relevant bits:
Merriam-Webster
atheism:
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
disbelieve:
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
Therefore one definition of atheism is a not-believing in the existence of a deity.
OED
From the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989
Atheist:
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
Atheism:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
Disbelieve:
1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to:
Therefore, again, one definition of atheism is a not-believing in the existence of a deity.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000.
atheist:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
atheism:
1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.
denial:
2a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation;
3a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.
Oh look, once again a definition of atheism is a refusal to accept the truth of the existence of a deity. i.e. to "not-believe".
Moving on...
1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
atheism:
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve:
Not to believe; to refuse belief or credence to; to hold not to be true or actual.
However, I must add that this dictionary goes further in stating that disbelief is the conscious rejection of the claim as false - so this would support the article's author's argument, it would seem... however...
denial:
2. A refusal to admit the truth of a statement, charge, imputation, etc.; assertion of the untruth of a thing stated or maintained; a contradiction.
So by this dictionary, anyone who refuses to say that "god exists" is true is an atheist through their denial of theism.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture that even the dictionary definitions that the author of that article quotes provides clear reasoning to counter his own arguments.
So it would seem that, contrary to Lixluke's claim that standard reputable dictionaries do not support the idea, it would seem that most do in fact allow for atheism being a mere non-belief in God etc.
Ok laxluke - I dont expect you to have the grace or courage to publicly admit you are wrong, or thank anyone here for the education you have been given as to what the word atheist means in the real world as opposed to what it means in your hopeful fantasies.
But now that every single part of your argument has been so utterly, comprehensively, and completely, shot into very small pieces, will you please give it a rest and let this thread die quietly.
But now that every single part of your argument has been so utterly, comprehensively, and completely, shot into very small pieces, will you please give it a rest and let this thread die quietly.
I lack belief in your ability to lack incomprehension in your lack of reading
It is most definitely contradictory. And this is not about using 'semantics' to support a conclusion. All semantics make no difference to the conclusions. No matter what 'wording' you use, it doesn't matter.
If you believe that man cannot conclude whether X is true or X is fale, then you cannot hold the position that X is false.
Atheism is Godlessness. They consider the universe to be without God.
Agnosticism is not Godlessness. They don't consider the universe to be with God. They don't consider the universe to be without God.
You may believe that man cannot possess knowledge on the matter regarding the existence of deity (agnosticism). Meanwhile, you may also lean towards the belief that there is no God (atheism). Thus, you choose to call yourself agnostic-atheist even though such terminology has no more reputability than typical slang. Many even consider such terminology more abominable than slang. But it's fine. An agnostic leaning towards atheism refering to himself as agnostic-atheist.
Yet regardless of how you wish to put it, ALL WORDS ASIDE, you cannot proclaim those who lack the belief as Godless. They might lean towards Godlessness as in your case. If you lean towards Godlessness, you may feel that you might as well categorize yourself with those who are Godless. However, agnosticism including any form of lack of belief is in itself completely neutral. Not with God. Not Godless.
Last edited:
Right. Atheism is the mental rejection of the existence of deity as untrue. Stop taking dictionaries out of context.
Are some dictionary definitions going to include "lack of belief" as a use for "atheism"? Sure. Not OED.
So anybody can call anybody anything anybody wants. If you lack belief, then call yourself atheist all day. Hell, you can call youself ahole if it pleases you.
Note: Everything on THIS website is pure loaded garbage that has no legitimacy.
Apologies if this isn't the clearest analogy, but it makes sense to me and hopefully it will help enlighten someone.
As much as I love the saying, the oft-quoted "atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby" it isn't entirely accurate - that's more like saying being non-religious is a religion. Saying that atheism is a religion though, in any sense of the word, is instead tantamount to asserting that "Not believing that stamps exist is a form of stamp collection." Religions can vary on how many "stamps" exist, what their powers are, whether the stamps are "personal" stamps or "nature", etc - but at the end of the day, the different forms of stamp collection share one thing: they are ways of collecting stamps.
Being non-religious in this case would simply be the non-collection of stamps. Atheism though would be the position that "stamps themselves do not exist" (not stamp collection does not exist, that would be absurd). Now, in common usage, atheism can sometimes mean "non-religious", but the result is the same - both stances are not a form of collecting stamps, nor are they a form of collection. They are not even a hobby.* They are a position regarding the existence of something. You can believe there are stamps and not collect them, or believe the stamps are figments of someones imagination. You can believe that it is impossible to know whether or not the stamps exist (agnosticism) and so do not start a hobby collecting them. Whatever the reason for your lack of the stamp collecting "hobby", the question of whether or not you think/believe/know, whatever the term you want to use, that the stamps themselves exist, does not affect whether you have that particular hobby or not (eg, stamp collection).
*Some atheists can care very deeply about their atheism, promote it, write about it, try and demonstrate the validity of their position to others. This would be a "hobby" in both the real and analogous sense. It does not involve the supernatural (thus no stamps) nor is it an act of worship (and therefore not a hobby involving collection) In these cases, the very closest you can get is saying that a person such as this is "religious" about atheism in the same way that someone can be "religious" in the way they follow a sports team. However this is not even close to the statement that atheism itself is a form of religion. Example: I love my chair. I tell others about how great my chair is. Some say I am religiously dedicated to telling others about my chair. What is my religion (in the "sports fan" sense?) Is it "Chair"? No. It is "Telling others about my chair". What if there is no talking to others involved, merely a dedicated love of the chair? Or the sincere belief that my chair is the "correct" chair? Is my religion in this case then "Chair"? Still no. It is "Love of my chair" or "Believing my chair is correct". The chair itself is not the religion in the sports sense, but the object of worship. Can you define the Christian religion as "God"? Of course not! It is the worship of what/who they consider to be "God".
In addition, to any who have posted that if asked what their religion was, an atheist would say "atheism", that is absurd. They would say "None." or "I don't have one." They might perhaps say by way of explanation "[None], I'm an atheist" but this is not stating that their religion is atheism, rather that atheism is the reason they do not follow a religion. Like someone has already mentioned, if you were asked your favourite football team, you wouldn't say "my favourite football team is that football doesn't exist." (Football = supernatural/deities, football team = religion, favourite = what i follow/consider to be true) The only case an atheist would reply in the manner you stated is because they did not know the definition of the words involved, or if they were a hypothetical construct forming part of a bias argument formed with the goal in mind to demonstrate the supposed validity of a false claim.
As much as I love the saying, the oft-quoted "atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby" it isn't entirely accurate - that's more like saying being non-religious is a religion. Saying that atheism is a religion though, in any sense of the word, is instead tantamount to asserting that "Not believing that stamps exist is a form of stamp collection." Religions can vary on how many "stamps" exist, what their powers are, whether the stamps are "personal" stamps or "nature", etc - but at the end of the day, the different forms of stamp collection share one thing: they are ways of collecting stamps.
Being non-religious in this case would simply be the non-collection of stamps. Atheism though would be the position that "stamps themselves do not exist" (not stamp collection does not exist, that would be absurd). Now, in common usage, atheism can sometimes mean "non-religious", but the result is the same - both stances are not a form of collecting stamps, nor are they a form of collection. They are not even a hobby.* They are a position regarding the existence of something. You can believe there are stamps and not collect them, or believe the stamps are figments of someones imagination. You can believe that it is impossible to know whether or not the stamps exist (agnosticism) and so do not start a hobby collecting them. Whatever the reason for your lack of the stamp collecting "hobby", the question of whether or not you think/believe/know, whatever the term you want to use, that the stamps themselves exist, does not affect whether you have that particular hobby or not (eg, stamp collection).
*Some atheists can care very deeply about their atheism, promote it, write about it, try and demonstrate the validity of their position to others. This would be a "hobby" in both the real and analogous sense. It does not involve the supernatural (thus no stamps) nor is it an act of worship (and therefore not a hobby involving collection) In these cases, the very closest you can get is saying that a person such as this is "religious" about atheism in the same way that someone can be "religious" in the way they follow a sports team. However this is not even close to the statement that atheism itself is a form of religion. Example: I love my chair. I tell others about how great my chair is. Some say I am religiously dedicated to telling others about my chair. What is my religion (in the "sports fan" sense?) Is it "Chair"? No. It is "Telling others about my chair". What if there is no talking to others involved, merely a dedicated love of the chair? Or the sincere belief that my chair is the "correct" chair? Is my religion in this case then "Chair"? Still no. It is "Love of my chair" or "Believing my chair is correct". The chair itself is not the religion in the sports sense, but the object of worship. Can you define the Christian religion as "God"? Of course not! It is the worship of what/who they consider to be "God".
In addition, to any who have posted that if asked what their religion was, an atheist would say "atheism", that is absurd. They would say "None." or "I don't have one." They might perhaps say by way of explanation "[None], I'm an atheist" but this is not stating that their religion is atheism, rather that atheism is the reason they do not follow a religion. Like someone has already mentioned, if you were asked your favourite football team, you wouldn't say "my favourite football team is that football doesn't exist." (Football = supernatural/deities, football team = religion, favourite = what i follow/consider to be true) The only case an atheist would reply in the manner you stated is because they did not know the definition of the words involved, or if they were a hypothetical construct forming part of a bias argument formed with the goal in mind to demonstrate the supposed validity of a false claim.
Last edited:
My American Heritage 3rd Ed defines atheism as "Godlessness" - are you willing to join lixluke in claiming that is not "lack of belief"?SAM said:
Or are the "Godless heathens" so often referred to in older Western literature, the Christian missionary operations among the "Godless" and so forth, to be taken as references to Bertrand Russell's fellow believers?
Somebody else atheists such as myself don't share a religious doctrine with, obviously.SAM said:
Is hairless lack of belief in hair?
Is pointless lack of belief in sharp objects?
being godless is a position, you maintain there is no god.
Neither. This question has already been answered. They are not believers. Therefore, they are not Godless. All semantics aside. Those who do not possess the belief cannot possibly be Godless regardless of what words or dictionaries you try to use.
Lixluke, you are disingenious troll!
Please compare my actual post #309 with what you have quoted me as saying in your post #313!!
Notice the difference?
You have replaced the part of my quote that stated the definition of disbelieve and have replaced it with their definition of disbelief. Since I did NOT quote the latter you are out of order in rewording my quote!
So don't EVER quote someone and change what they wrote. If you wish to argue against them, do so - but if you're quoting them it behooves you to do so accurately or face the consequence.
Furthermore - the definition of disbelief INCLUDES (and I will use the precise words you used in the misquote) "the act of disbelieving".
And what does it mean to "disbelieve"?
Oh look - is it by any chance what I did actually post?
As to what you actually wrote after misquoting me:
You are saying I am taking dictionaries out of context? Firstly - no I am not - I have highlighted the relevant part of the dictionary entries as quoted in the essay that SAM linked to - and from those highlighted sections it is undeniable (unless you misunderstand logic) that atheism can be interpreted as "not having belief in God" etc.
Those highlighted sections are NOT taken out of context - no more so than highlighting anything else on a list and saying that it is on the list.
Secondly - you have taken a single entry that makes no reference to atheism being merely a "lack of belief" and feel that that "compact" and rather lightweight dictionary weighs equally to the more respectable dictionaries that were detailed - including the OED?
Sheesh.
Have you actually read the OED entry, or have you merely linked to "AskOxford.com" which is a compact dictionary aimed at those learning English as a foreign language?
Oh look - it's AskOxford.com.
Please go to your local library and actually have a look at the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY. The full one, as that is afterall what you are laying your claims on.
It was a few dictionaries that did this. But, again, read what I said. I said they included BOTH definitions. Those who believe there is no God and those who lack a belief in God. The OED is the one I remember, but there were others. And interestingly it showed that both meaning go way back in time.
and this matches my sense of the way it is used both by theists and atheists. Of course some of both use a single meaning. But overall it covers both meanings.
Let's assume that you you're not smoking crack, and that you really do have a dictionary that states:Lixluke, you are disingenious troll!
Please compare my actual post #309 with what you have quoted me as saying in your post #313!!
Notice the difference?
You have replaced the part of my quote that stated the definition of disbelieve and have replaced it with their definition of disbelief. Since I did NOT quote the latter you are out of order in rewording my quote!
So don't EVER quote someone and change what they wrote. If you wish to argue against them, do so - but if you're quoting them it behooves you to do so accurately or face the consequence.
Furthermore - the definition of disbelief INCLUDES (and I will use the precise words you used in the misquote) "the act of disbelieving".
And what does it mean to "disbelieve"?
Oh look - is it by any chance what I did actually post?
As to what you actually wrote after misquoting me:
You are saying I am taking dictionaries out of context? Firstly - no I am not - I have highlighted the relevant part of the dictionary entries as quoted in the essay that SAM linked to - and from those highlighted sections it is undeniable (unless you misunderstand logic) that atheism can be interpreted as "not having belief in God" etc.
Those highlighted sections are NOT taken out of context - no more so than highlighting anything else on a list and saying that it is on the list.
Secondly - you have taken a single entry that makes no reference to atheism being merely a "lack of belief" and feel that that "compact" and rather lightweight dictionary weighs equally to the more respectable dictionaries that were detailed - including the OED?
Sheesh.
Have you actually read the OED entry, or have you merely linked to "AskOxford.com" which is a compact dictionary aimed at those learning English as a foreign language?
Oh look - it's AskOxford.com.
Please go to your local library and actually have a look at the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY. The full one, as that is afterall what you are laying your claims on.
"Atheism = Lack of belief in deity. Absence of belief in deity."
The only reason any dictionary would include that is to accommodate the nutbags who wish to use the term in a way that:
1. Is not the original etymological meaning of the term.
2. Is not the common standard use of the term.
Yes. Dictionaries are meant to describe how words are being used. Thereby, they can include alternate meanings of a word to show common possibilities of how people might insist on using them.
Yet despite the growing number of crackpots, this particular term has a particular traditional meaning and common standard usage which is to describe those of the perspective that deities do not exist. Including individuals like Richard Dawkins who claim there is no such thing as God.
There is no point in insisting on using the term in any other sense. Just because some dictionary says that the term can be used in that way doesn't mean people should jump aboard the caravan of idioticy, act like the wackos on infedels, and abide by a completely absurd format.