Definitions of atheism

[Lord of Lost Socks]

I have a feeling I've misunderstood the nature of this discussion.

An apatheist can be either a theist or an atheist just like an agnostic, since any given belief is either present or not with any given person.

An apatheistic theist would hold the position that the existence or non-existence of a God is not important, yet they still believe in one and their behaviour would not change if God's nonexistence was proven. This group however is so small(or huge if you're talking to a cynic atheist) that they are largely disregarded. Most who indentify themself as apatheist are atheist.

The way the term 'agnosticsm' is used.. Not very useful. Why should anyone be an agnostic by that standard, using it to say "I don't claim to know"? This sort of usage usually comes with the claim that one should be an agnostic because one cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Which is all and well, except for the slight inconvenience that one should be an "agnostic" toward all claims of anything by that standard.

Agnosticism is only useful as the assertion that god is unknowable: information of it through revelation or otherwise is impossible to attain.

If one uses it to say "I don't claim to know the truth because I can't prove it wrong", then one should be agnostic about everything. But I doubt any "agnostic" is, because solipsism is useless enough. If someone can prove that I'm not God then I'll concede.

Agnosticism is about the difference of belief versus knowledge. They claim that God is unknoweable. They do not necessarily claim that you are unknoweable(though they may). It wouldn't be impossible for me to gather biologists and they would tell me you are human, and without any evidence to the contrary I would accept it.

It's a matter of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A strong agnostic says that this evidence does not exist. I'm a weak agnostic, I say that we do not have this evidence at the moment, but may in the future.

I can't necessarily prove 100% that I exist, but just me thinking about this is a pretty strong case.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Most who indentify themself as apatheist are atheist.

I cannot visualize a theist to whom the existence of god is so unimportant that he can call himself an apatheist. It basically requires "no belief" to work out.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Someone who believes in Gods, yet never prays or does anything relating to the God in question and would not really care if he was proven wrong. I know some people who could quite easily fit in to this. They believe in God in a warm and fuzzy way, other than that they put little thought on the subject. If God was disproven, I don't think their behaviour or character would change in any significant way.

It's not a common position.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Agnosticism is about the difference of belief versus knowledge. They claim that God is unknoweable. They do not necessarily claim that you are unknoweable(though they may). It wouldn't be impossible for me to gather biologists and they would tell me you are human, and without any evidence to the contrary I would accept it.

It's a matter of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A strong agnostic says that this evidence does not exist. I'm a weak agnostic, I say that we do not have this evidence at the moment, but may in the future.

I can't necessarily prove 100% that I exist, but just me thinking about this is a pretty strong case.

And isn't that exactly it! You're no agnostic, you're just an atheist. Sure, go ahead be an agnostic, but you're not gonna be one with any consistency. Yes that's it!

Agnosticism makes sense only when well.. If you can prove that I'm not God then all is settled

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

To the OP, amidst the sea of irrelevant opinions.

Atheism is the unbelief in the existence of a deity, whether in the Supreme form, or in the form of a contingent multiplicity of deities.

Modern Atheism, in particular, is propelled by an ideological view that is strongly saturated with Enlightenment propaganda, and with the epistemological materialism, metaphysical agnosticism, as well as the agressive nominalism of late Cartesian idealism.*

Ancient atheism - eg, Samkhya, Mayavadins, Epicureanism, Buddhism, Neoplatonism & similar movements - either neglects the issue of the existential, substantial Supreme Being, confines it to a subordinate cosmic role, or actively attempts to disprove it either totally or in some of its categories, vis the essence-existence paradigm or the role of causality / as in active sustaining "divine" providence (see Augustine & Aquinas).

That is the most complete definition of atheism that can be provided.

=====

* This view is kinda cute, because the absolute rationalism that is entailed by Enlightenment humanism HAS a self-contradictory epistemological assumption of the unreality of concepts as they are in nature, as well as of causality (see for instance Kant, Hume and Berkeley) - that pretty much means it is self-refuting, and delivers one into a paradox of un-knowledge that is pretty much the same as total self-annihilating nihilism.

[Hakkapeliitta]

To the OP, amidst the sea of irrelevant opinions.

Atheism is the denial in the belief in the existence of a deity, whether in the Supreme form, or in the form of a contingent multiplicity of deities.

Modern Atheism, in particular, is propelled by an ideological view that is strongly saturated with Enlightenment propaganda, and with the epistemological materialism, metaphysical agnosticism, as well as the agressive nominalism of late Cartesian idealism.

Ancient atheism - eg, Samkhya, Mayavadins, Epicureanism, Buddhism, Neoplatonism & similar movements - either neglects the issue of the existential, substantial Supreme Being, confines it to a subordinate cosmic role, or actively attempts to disprove it either totally or in some of its categories, vis the essence-existence paradigm or the role of causality / as in active sustaining providence.

That is the most complete definition of atheism that can be provided.

And how do you suppose this could be averted? Inverted? How could society be changed so that Atheism can be averted? Should schools start to ban biology?

[TheSutekh]

Russell, Nagel, Dennett, Harris, all use the terms the way I do.

Here's philosopher Michael Martin on it:

"If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."


And here's Anthony Flew and Paul Edwards on the matter:

"I want the originally Greek prefix "a" to be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels "positive atheist" for the former and "negative atheist" for the latter. "

And Gordon Stein:

"When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God."

These are all prominent atheist philosophers who use the word in precisely the way we've described. And since it's now used in this exact context by contemporary atheists, we are on firm ground.
Your turn.

Michael Martin makes an etymological case for atheism yet ignores the same arguments when he makes an argument for agnosticism. He's also accused of trying to lift the burden of proof fro atheists and entirely put it on theists:

This understanding of atheism is fairly commonly accepted by other atheists, although some theists complain that 'negative atheism' is trivial or evasive. William Lane Craig argues that Martin is 'redefining' the term to argue for the presumption of atheism,[2] and it is certainly clear that atheists involved in these debates tend to be positive atheists. As well as the claim that it represents the etymology of the term, atheists tend to favour this definition because it treats atheism as the 'null hypothesis', and seems to clearly put the burden of proof on the believer. Martin is clear that defence of negative atheism merely requires refutations of theistic argument, while defence of positive atheism requires reasons for disbelief to be given.[3] One criticism of Martin's definition is that it is not what is commonly understood by 'atheism', and may therefore be confusing and unhelpful. As well as Martin's acknowledgement that dictionaries tend to define atheism positively, many surveys have shown that far fewer people identify as atheists than lack belief in God. For example, Greeley's 2003 survey found that 31% of Britons did not believe in God, but only 10% considered themselves 'atheist'.[4] Martin's appeal to etymology does not necessarily make his definition more helpful if it is not how the word is understood: and his use of agnosticism to be a question of belief rather than knowledge sits uneasily with this etymological approach. Putting to one side the question of what atheism 'should' or 'really' means, the positive-negative distinction is certainly useful in philosophical discussions as a shorthand for different sorts of atheism.

Too bad I read your pathetic incivility last. I wish I read first part of your post more properly so that I wouldn't waste my time with the rest of your garbage. As I said before, I'll ignore you from this point on as you're unable to discuss this issue properly. At least I warned you.

I was refuting your claim that atheism was born out of the denial of God. Try to keep up, please.

Then you were wrongly doing that.

Address what? Your personal opinion on the matter that it's not analagous because by your own preconceived definitions, they aren't?

What about it?

Try to go back and actually address my post.

Doesn't matter. What's being justified there is the "acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity", which is clearly not what someone like me -or the people writing books about it- are doing. We're quite interested in the question, but we still don't have a belief in God, largely due to lack of evidence.

You're right, it does help to read
Noticed how apatheism is referred to as practical atheism, by the way?

All of which is used to justify their apathy and attitude of not caring, not their non-belief itself. That's in the text too.

Consistency and all.

So, when your source back you up you're the king of sourcing but when your own source contradict you it's just a trivial piece that doesn't matter. Why should I even argue with someone who uses such double standards in such a blunt manner? Don't talk to me about consistency. You're making a mockery of that notion.

Since philosophers define philosophical terms (the same way physicists are in charge of defining terms like "relativity" and "force" in the context of physics) and we are having a philosophical discussion on definitions, the opinions of philosophers (as well the leaders of the movement) matter a hell of a lot more than Joe Atheist.

So, the answer is no. You have no study to back up your claim about the "entire atheist community" and instead of owning a mistake you prefer to downplay them as insignificant beings.

And what he labels himself in a society very hostile towards atheism, is even more so.
So let's agree to give Diderot a rest and let's focus on some other philosophers, like -oh I don't know- the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th Century?

Oh, I'm enjoying how each time something backfires you try to downplay them like claiming hell fire is just a camp fire. So sad that you'd have to resort to such tactics.

Because otherwise you're going to completely misrepresent our position before you even start. Which won't be good for either your apologetics or the possibility of a conversation.

I didn't ask why you care. Why should theists care about what you wanna label yourself? Will theists start having depressions just because some people call themselves atheists incorrectly?

And that's supposed to phase me because?
What people on the street identify themselves as matters all in a discussion about philosophical definitions.

Because it's proves that you're not as knowledgeable of the "atheist" community as you think you are despite throwing claims about what they see themselves as.

You have also used a number of philosophers incorrectly. Even Richard Dawkins says that he's not an atheist but an agnostic.

He also uses the popular use of the term agnostic.

[basics]

An atheist is one who wilfully does not believe that God exists. I say wilfully because God has already declared that in each of us He has left knowledge that He does exist so by the will of man certain ones have that notion. Why they do is because of the fall of man but then their excuse is that Genesis and the fall never ever happened, thinking that gets them off the hook.

But, take Richard Dawkins, the great highpriest of non belief, notice how his vocabulary on the subject is changing as he continues to ridicule himself before his highly educated peers. No longer is there " no God " but " if there is a God " seems to creep into his arguments pretty regularly so I believe. From atheist to agnostic for the purpose of them that know him, the riffraff, well they get the original if only for the laughs it generates. Perhaps the little hypocrite has read about what God thinks of scoffers?

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

But, take Richard Dawkins, the great highpriest of non belief,

LOL

[Tankbuster]

Michael Martin makes an etymological case for atheism yet ignores the same arguments when he makes an argument for agnosticism. He's also accused of trying to lift the burden of proof fro atheists and entirely put it on theists:

Conservapedia? Nice try, sir.

But yes, atheism has no burden of proof because we're not making a positive claim -as I keep trying to tell you.
You were also very quick to dismiss Martin on the grounds of something which you did not substantiate (as far as I can tell Martin's definition of agnosticism fits perfectly well with that of Huxley), and ignored Flew, Dennett, Edwards and all the others.

Too bad I read your pathetic incivility last. I wish I read first part of your post more properly so that I wouldn't waste my time with the rest of your garbage. As I said before, I'll ignore you from this point on as you're unable to discuss this issue properly. At least I warned you.

Ignore me if you like, but anyone can see that I'm addressing your arguments fairly.

So, when your source back you up you're the king of sourcing but when your own source contradict you it's just a trivial piece that doesn't matter.

Reading comprehension, my friend.

The piece of the source you -rather triumphantly- appealed to is the justification of the aforementioned apathy and lack of interest towards the question of theism, not the non-belief itself.
So for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter.

I never said the source itself doesn't matter: in fact it's totally accurate as far as I can tell, including the reference to apatheism as pragmatic atheism. The piece you appealed to, however, didn't support what you were trying to say.

Why should I even argue with someone who uses such double standards in such a blunt manner? Don't talk to me about consistency. You're making a mockery of that notion.

Nope, the source is perfectly accurate: see above.

I know you're desperate to dismiss anything I say as cheaply and quickly as you possibly can, but really, you'll have to try a bit harder.

So, the answer is no. You have no study to back up your claim about the "entire atheist community" and instead of owning a mistake you prefer to downplay them as insignificant beings.

You're confused again. The job of defining philosophical terms is up to philosophers, and in a second instance to the leaders of the communities -this is the way it works with Christian too, for instance.

And the fact is that modern philosophers use the terms the way I've pointed out (and in that regard we're still 7 to none), and the people in the atheist community use it similarly as per their leaders and organisations.

Oh, I'm enjoying how each time something backfires you try to downplay them like claiming hell fire is just a camp fire. So sad that you'd have to resort to such tactics.

You were the one who brought up Diderot and who ran to the hills when it was pointed out that he's referred to as an atheist philosopher everywhere. You also failed to back up your claim about him.

Your argumentation is getting rather thin, by the way.

I didn't ask why you care. Why should theists care about what you wanna label yourself? Will theists start having depressions just because some people call themselves atheists incorrectly?

Many theists care about what non-theists believe in order to either convert them or have a conversation with them. Most, I would argue.
So these people will need to understand that what their conversation partner means by "I'm an atheist" might be different than what they were taught in Sunday school.

Not that you'd be interested in that, seeing as you're more interested in scoring points.

Because it's proves that you're not as knowledgeable of the "atheist" community as you think you are despite throwing claims about what they see themselves as.

And people who don't label themselves as atheist are part of the atheist community because...

You have also used a number of philosophers incorrectly.

Strange how you've yet to prove that.

Even Richard Dawkins says that he's not an atheist but an agnostic.

Is this the same Richard Dawkins who preached militant atheism at TED and calls himself an atheist in his own friggin' book?

Dawkins usually calls himself an agnostic atheist, because by his definition (and the one by most philosophers, remember) atheism and agnosticism are not mutually incompatible. So he feels he can subscribe to both labels, with atheist being the most important.

[Portuguese Rebel]

No longer is there " no God " but " if there is a God " seems to creep into his arguments pretty regularly so I believe

If you read his stuff basically he always did this. In order to conclude there is no god he always sets off from a preposition that if he exists then this and that. It's not new at all. And i've never seen Dawkins getting ridiculed at all. Post it though, i would like to see one such occasion. What i see happen many times is people not really understanding what he is saying. Honestly the guy is a head above the average joe, and sometimes forget he must explain it well enough for dumber people to understand. I know this seems a rough view on things, but it's true nonetheless.

[irelandeb]

Do you have a single study on the stances taken by your supposed "atheists"? All the atheists I know strictly believe that god doesn't exist.

I'd be surprised if you knew a single person who believed this. You know people who don't believe he exists. People who believe he doesn't are very rare.

[Tankbuster]

I'd be surprised if you knew a single person who believed this. You know people who don't believe he exists. People who believe he doesn't are very rare.

Much of it also boils down to semantical short-cuts.
I'm quite happy to say "There is no God" as an off-hand remark, for instance, as a short-cut for "The evidence for the claim is so low at this point, that I highly doubt evidence will be forthcoming, and we might as well treat it as false".

However, if pressed on this point I wouldn't actually commit to the position that I positively believe that there definitely isn't a God -in order to do that I would have to field evidence in support of a negative, which is nigh impossible.
I use it as a linguistic short-cut in situations where the philosophical rigor on the issue isn't relevant; but in the situatinos where it is, such as with definitions, I simply don't have a belief that God exists. That is all.

[Taiji]

Do you understand what I'm saying? Because I think you clearly don't.

Yeah you're saying all apatheists are atheists. Which is the opposite of the point you were trying to make. That's what's so funny.

You differentiated between apatheism and atheism. You prove to me know that you have no idea what you're talking about but only arguing to oppose something. Quite pathetic really.

Yeah, I think you can believe in god without caring/questioning if he really exists. So it's you who don't seem to know what I'm talking about, not me, surprisingly enough. So is that pathetic too then?

It's not freaky but embarrassing for you.

See first paragraph.

[TheSutekh]

Yeah you're saying all apatheists are atheists. Which is the opposite of the point you were trying to make. That's what's so funny.

So you don't understand what I'm saying. Do you know what the phrase "they claim" means?

Yeah, I think you can believe in god without caring/questioning if he really exists. So it's you who don't seem to know what I'm talking about, not me, surprisingly enough. So is that pathetic too then?

See first paragraph.

It would be pathetic if you were right but quite embarrassingly on your part you're wrong. You argued that, which I quote, "if you say you don't care whether god exists or not then you haven't expressed whether you're a theist or an atheist." You also argued, which I quote again, "apatheists are all atheists." These two quotes contradict each other completely.

Let's see how you're gonna dance around that know. To use your words, this is getting really freaky as you're unable to provide a consistent argument about something so simple as this.

[Tankbuster]

Speaking of dancing around, Seth, we're all waiting with breathless anticipation how you're going to justify your claim that Dawkins says he's not an atheist based on a single quote-mine.

So was that the same Dawkins who preached militant atheism at TED, and who attends and speak at just about every Atheist Convention known to man? Or was that some other guy by the same name?

[Lord of Lost Socks]

lol. Talking about taking out of context.
What Dawkins actually said in the interview was that on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is that you know God exists, and 7 is you know God doesn't exist, he is a 6)he later changed it to 6.9). Note that he was talking about knowing about God, as opposed to belief. Anyone who is between 1 and 7 is agnostic. Any atheist who claims he knows God doesn't exist is as fundamentally wrong as a theist who knows God does exist. I can't be an explicit atheist out of principle. I am forced to admit that there is a small chance God might exist. That's what any rational person does. Just like any rational theist must admit that there is a small chance that he is wrong. Both are agnostic.

He uses this 1-7 scale in God Delusion. Nr. 6 is a "De Facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

inb4 "amagad dawkins said he is agnostic lol. atheism is wrong god exists."


EDIT: Lol, just googled about this. Half the results are christian or sensational sites rejoicing over Dawkins "converting to agnosticism" and the other half is atheist sites going "Huh? We're all agnostic."

[basics]

Portugese Rebel,

Well are these men any lower in the educational strata that you place Dawkins for here are some of their quotes on him.

" The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University.

" Richard Dawkins' utopian vision of a world without religion is here deftly punctured by Alister McGrath's informed discourse. (The Dawkins Delusion) His fellow Oxonian clearly demonstrates the gaps, inconsistencies, and surprising lack of depth in Dawkins' arguments." Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy, Harvard University.

" Addressing the conclusions of the God Delusion point by point with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian, Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project.

And of course, Alister McGrath, Professor of Theology, Ministry and Education, King's College, London, and, Joanna Collicutt McGrath, Lecturer in Psychology of Religion, Heythrop College, University of London.

[Taiji]

So you don't understand what I'm saying.

I wonder if you would admit it if I did and it wasn't in your favour.

Do you know what the phrase "they claim" means?

Yeah.

It would be pathetic if you were right but quite embarrassingly on your part you're wrong. You argued that, which I quote, "if you say you don't care whether god exists or not then you haven't expressed whether you're a theist or an atheist." You also argued, which I quote again, "apatheists are all atheists." These two quotes contradict each other completely.

You quoted a source saying all apatheists are atheists, but without realising it because you didn't know what subset means. And it's still funny

So anyway, I am disagreeing with you or your source, I don't care. I guess you shouldn't quote stupid stuff you've mistakenly decided supports your point if you don't want taking up on it as if you believe it.

Let's see how you're gonna dance around that know.

Ummm 'now'?

EDIT: Lol, just googled about this. Half the results are christian or sensational sites rejoicing over Dawkins "converting to agnosticism" and the other half is atheist sites going "Huh? We're all agnostic."

Hehe sounds about right. It's like this stupid old theist-agnostic-atheist system is somehow moronically attractive... And it's not like the religious have the monopoly on morons, of course (we're all morons at some point or other)

[TheSutekh]

I wonder if you would admit it if I did and it wasn't in your favour.

Yeah.

And you know that when someone starts a sentence with "they claim" they're not really making a statement of their own but pointing what others say?

You quoted a source saying all apatheists are atheists, but without realising it because you didn't know what subset means. And it's still funny

So anyway, I am disagreeing with you or your source, I don't care. I guess you shouldn't quote stupid stuff you've mistakenly decided supports your point if you don't want taking up on it as if you believe it.

a) I did not quote a source. I quoted your words that contradicted though.
b) I pointed out what Himster and Phier claimed (that apatheism is a sub-set of atheism) to point out to you that you're contradicting them.
c) I later quoted your words to show you how you claim apatheists to be atheists in one post and claim that they're not atheists in another post.

I don't think I can explain in more simpler terms to you. This getting really scary how you can't possibly understand this. I'm truly appalled by this. So sad.

lol. Talking about taking out of context.
What Dawkins actually said in the interview was that on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is that you know God exists, and 7 is you know God doesn't exist, he is a 6)he later changed it to 6.9). Note that he was talking about knowing about God, as opposed to belief. Anyone who is between 1 and 7 is agnostic. Any atheist who claims he knows God doesn't exist is as fundamentally wrong as a theist who knows God does exist. I can't be an explicit atheist out of principle. I am forced to admit that there is a small chance God might exist. That's what any rational person does. Just like any rational theist must admit that there is a small chance that he is wrong. Both are agnostic.

He uses this 1-7 scale in God Delusion. Nr. 6 is a "De Facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

inb4 "amagad dawkins said he is agnostic lol. atheism is wrong god exists."

EDIT: Lol, just googled about this. Half the results are christian or sensational sites rejoicing over Dawkins "converting to agnosticism" and the other half is atheist sites going "Huh? We're all agnostic."

That's the point. He bases theism on either knowing god exists or believing completely that god exists. And, he bases atheism on either knowing that god doesn't exist or believing completely that god doesn't exist. You can check it out in page 73 of his book. His scale going from theism -- to -- agnosticism -- to -- atheism is close to my example of positive(theism), neutral(agnosticism or apatheism ) and negative(atheism) numbers.