Definition of Atheism

[Desperado †]

Is atheism simply not believing in God (which would encompass agnostics)? Or is it also denying God (which would not)? Or just being without a religion?

Ah crap, forgot an 'other' on the poll, though I don't think there is.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

1) Weak atheism
2) Strong atheism (or, the outcome of weak atheism, arguably)
3) All of the above, plus many more.

[Desperado †]

So you would describe agnostics as 'weak' atheists?

[uos_spo6]

Atheism by definition can only mean belief in no God.

Popularly it has come to represent a broader group generally who accept nothing unexplainable through science it seems though.

But by definition accordng to the laws of english, the prefix A attached to theism has to mean no god. Just like the prefix A attached to sexual means no sex.

Simply "doubting" cannot be construed as Atheism because it isn't a solid belief, doubting accepts no truth and declares no commitment. That's agnosticism, which to me implies indifference as well.

I'm agnostic, and I don't like God if such a thing exists anyways.

[The Count(er)]

Atheism by definition can only mean belief in no God.

No, it means no belief in god, there's a very distinct difference.

But by definition accordng to the laws of english, the prefix A attached to theism has to mean no god. Just like the prefix A attached to sexual means no sex.

No, it means without sex, just like Atheism means without theism, meaning you either believe there is no god, or just don't believe in a god, but you've got your definitions all muddled up.

Popularly it has come to represent a broader group generally who accept nothing unexplainable through science it seems though.

No, I personally have not seen that definition, could you show me examples of where people are using it like that, because they are quite wrong.

Simply "doubting" cannot be construed as Atheism because it isn't a solid belief, doubting accepts no truth and declares no commitment. That's agnosticism, which to me implies indifference as well.

Atheism is rarely a solid belief, plain and simple, simply doubting is weak atheism, the definition of agnosticism is quite different from doubting the existence of god.

I'm agnostic, and I don't like God if such a thing exists anyways.

An agnostic what? Agnostic Theist? Agnostic Atheist? There isn't just an agnostic stance, you either live your life as if god exists(Agnostic Theist) or you don't(Agnostic Atheist).

TG just posted proper definitions, if you need clarification.

[uos_spo6]

No, it means no belief in god, there's a very distinct difference.

No, it means without sex, just like Atheism means without theism, meaning you either believe there is no god, or just don't believe in a god, but you've got your definitions all muddled up.

No, I personally have not seen that definition, could you show me examples of where people are using it like that, because they are quite wrong.

Atheism is rarely a solid belief, plain and simple, simply doubting is weak atheism, the definition of agnosticism is quite different from doubting the existence of god.

An agnostic what? Agnostic Theist? Agnostic Atheist? There isn't just an agnostic stance, you either live your life as if god exists(Agnostic Theist) or you don't(Agnostic Atheist).

TG just posted proper definitions, if you need clarification.

All you're doing is playing semantics and complicating simple definitions by expanding and over thinking them. Atheism = no god. Agnosticism = doubt, ambivalence, unknown. How is this any different from what I'd said?

To each his own though. Take them how you wish but I take them for dictionary meaning, within context they are all used quite differently much as any word in any language.

"Belief in no god"

"no belief in god"

Please elaborate on any perceiveable difference in the meaning of the two statements if you can find one, because I cannot. A negative belief is still a belief just the same as negative one is still a value.


a⋅the⋅ism  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

Use Atheism in a Sentence

–noun 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.



ag⋅nos⋅tic  /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA

Use Agnostic in a Sentence

–noun 1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.2.a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

[Ragabash]

A negative belief is still a belief just the same as negative one is still a value.

You first have to define in which context we use the word belief, and in what manner. The word can have very different functions regarding in what context it's used.

"I don't believe apples are blue, neither I believe there are monsters under my bed."

Atheism falls into this category, it's more of a position where one have accepted the absence of belief in God(s) rather than being on par with religious (dis)belief.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

All you're doing is playing semantics and complicating simple definitions by expanding and over thinking them.

Nonsense. I hate it when, in a discussion of philosophical terms which requires precision, someone who likes to use sloppy, imprecise or totally wrong definitions gets snippy with those of us who know what the terms actually mean and start this snivelling about "semantics". It's not frigging sematics, it's precision. If you don't like precise terms, stay away from philosophy and go try flower arranging or something.

Atheism = no god. Agnosticism = doubt, ambivalence, unknown. How is this any different from what I'd said?

The fact that you've totally bungled the definition of agnosticism for a start. Agnosticism has nothing at all to do with mere "doubt" and little to do with "ambivalence". It isn't even saying God is "unknown". Again, as I've already explained in an earlier post above: "Agnosticism: The position that states that God or gods are/would be totally unknowable and utterly unable to be apprehended by humans." Not "unknown" - UNKNOWABLE. Spot the key difference. And before you start wibbering at me about how most people use the word - most people are simply wrong. The word was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1889 and he defined it very precisely. The fact that people who don't have a clue misuse it to mean merely "doubt" or "ambivalence" doesn't change what Huxley said the word means.

And you've bungled the definition of atheism as well. Atheism doesn't mean "no god", it also means "without God" or even "never even heard of God". So, wrong again.

To each his own though. Take them how you wish but I take them for dictionary meaning, within context they are all used quite differently much as any word in any language.

And, right on cue, we get the feeble "dictionary meaning" non-argument. Sorry to break it to you, but dictionaries catalogue usage, not technical definitions. How a word is used and what it means in a philosophical discussion are often two totally different things. With "agnosticism", the word is commonly used in a way that is totally wrong. Huxley invented the word and Huxley defined it. So Huxley's definition (see above) is the technical meaning of the word. End of story.

But if you think the precise, technical definitions of words in philosophy are somehow simply semantics then I suggest you leave philosophical discussions to those who know what they are frigging talking about and take up origami or something.

There is no room to create an additional label of "soft atheism", doubt is included within agnosticism, not only the idea that it cannot be known. Doubting god exists is agnostic. Having an affirmative position that it does not is Atheist. There is no need for inbetweens.

More total garbage. See above. You don't know what "agnosticism" even means.

I checked several internet definition sites.

Dictionaries don't define terms, they list usage. Including imprecise and erroneous usage. So you can "check" your imprecise and erroneous usage on as many sites as you like, you'll still be using the terms wrongly.

because academically there is no "soft atheist", you're either a theist, an atheist, or agnostic.

Gee, well I guess those philosophy professors who gave me that degree must have been totally wrong. Perhaps you can throw your frigging dictionary at them. Go educate yourself. Suck on this for a start.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

So you would describe agnostics as 'weak' atheists?

Yet again:

Atheism: Any position which is without a belief in God or gods. That includes (i) those who deny the existence of God ("hard atheism"), (ii) those who are simply unconvinced by the arguments and evidence for God ("soft atheism") and (iii) those who have never heard of the concept of God or gods (naive atheism).

Most people who call themselves "agnostics" are actually simply atheists of the "soft atheism" variety.

Agnosticism: The position that states that God or gods are/would be totally unknowable and utterly unable to be apprehended by humans.

Most people who call themselves "agnostics" don't actually hold the agnostic position. They believe God or gods could potentially be knowable or apprehended (by acting in the universe, for example), but are simply unconvinced there is any solid evidence or argument that He/they exist.

So most people who call themselves "agnostics" are actually atheists. And most atheists are "soft atheists".

[uos_spo6]

Agnosticism: The position that states that God or gods are/would be totally unknowable and utterly unable to be apprehended by humans.

Most people who call themselves "agnostics" don't actually hold the agnostic position. They believe God or gods could potentially be knowable or apprehended (by acting in the universe, for example), but are simply unconvinced there is any solid evidence or argument that He/they exist.

So most people who call themselves "agnostics" are actually atheists. And most atheists are "soft atheists".

There is no room to create an additional label of "soft atheism", doubt is included within agnosticism, not only the idea that it cannot be known. Doubting god exists is agnostic. Having an affirmative position that it does not is Atheist. There is no need for inbetweens.

I checked several internet definition sites. All of them affirm this. I don't see how it's open to debate to define a word unless you are talking about define it within the context of common usage, because academically there is no "soft atheist", you're either a theist, an atheist, or agnostic.

[MaximiIian]

So you would describe agnostics as 'weak' atheists?

No. Agnosticism is more or less separate, though still intertwined somewhat. Agnosticism concern epistemology, questioning whether we can perceive things correctly, and if our perceptions constitute gnosis, or knowledge. Obviously, this can overlap with theological positions, and most agnostics are probably going to be agnostic atheists; but not all agnostics are atheists.

[touchmaster]

So you would describe agnostics as 'weak' atheists?

Yes, basically.

Or it could mean they weakly believe in god but also have strong believes in no god that balance the two believes out.



BTW: Horribly done poll, you can't narrow it down to just 4 options.

[Ragabash]

I accidently voted for the third option in my haste as I was going to add 'other' option to the poll (I hope this is fine with the thread starter, I got the impression you might want to include that option) but changed my vote to other (so don't be fooled about my name showing off in wrong category -one good thing about being a moderator ) as atheism in it's core is not really neither disbelief in God, neither is it denial of God or being without religion, but absence of belief in God(s).

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I accidently voted for the third option in my haste as I was going to add 'other' option (I hope this is fine with the thread starter, I got the impression you might want to include that option) but changed my vote to other -so don't be fooled (one good thing being a moderator ) as atheism in it's core is not really neither disbelief in God, neither is it denial of God or being without religion, but absence of belief in God(s).

The poll is flawed in that it offers two options which are both atheism as some kind of "either/or". Option one and option two are BOTH atheism, yet the poll asks you to choose between the two. Clearly the OP doesn't understand what the word means and this poll is totally pointless and useless.

[Ragabash]

The poll is flawed in that it offers two options which are both atheism as some kind of "either/or". Option one and option two are BOTH atheism, yet the poll asks you to choose between the two. Clearly the OP doesn't understand what the word means and this poll is totally pointless and useless.

True, but I got the impression that we were asked what atheism is in it's core; or how we understand the concept generally.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

True, but I got the impression that we were asked what atheism is in it's core;

Both the first options are, by definition, atheism "in its core".

or how we understand the concept generally.

If the last five years of watching people trip over false definitions of atheism on this forum is anything to go by, most people don't understand the concept at all.

[Ragabash]

Both the first options are, by definition, atheism "in its core".


If the last five years of watching people trip over false definitions of atheism on this forum is anything to go by, most people don't understand the concept at all.

Indeed, but if I were to explain what atheism means to someone, I wouldn't call it actual disbelief in God, neither would I call it denial of God but absence of belief in God(s), regardless if the two first options are included in the definition of atheism.

I just got the impression that this poll was mostly how we would best explain atheism with just few words.

[Player989random]

Don't believe in God, and if it showed up I would ignore it and all of its commands.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

'Denying God' implies that he exists, but atheists simply fail to realise him. Pretty much the situation we have but only somewhat reversed.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I very much doubt that an atheist who is confident in his beliefs would describe himself as someone who denies God, if he were asked whether he denied God, he would say something along the lines of "There isn't a God to deny". Christians trying to persaude on-the-fence atheists to denounce their religious views through lame trickery.