What is the Definition of Atheism?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Which Definition of Atheism Do You Use?

Why, does it matter?

I once had a theist ask me (and he was serious): "Which god is it that you don't believe in?"

"That is, are you an atheist Baptist? Or an atheist Catholic? Or an atheist Jew? Atheist Hindu? Atheist Shinto?"

*sigh* He did not see the irony of his position-- he believed in a very narrow version of the Christian God-- but did not believe that Catholics were Christians... And he did not believe in any of the Hindu gods, and so forth.

I pointed out to him, that he was an atheist with respect to the Catholic God, by his own words.

A statement he rejected. Which was even more confusing... if Catholics are not Christians, but the Catholic God was real? Wait... what?

 

[Willamena]

Nor is it a "rejection" of all gods, strictly speaking, as the fourth choice asserts. To reject something implies that that something is well-defined and real enough to either consider, accept, or reject; rejection therefore requires belief in the object of rejection. An atheist, by contrast, lacks belief in the very notion of gods. So from an atheist's perspective, there is really nothing to reject; hence, atheism cannot be defined as a rejection of gods.

Peace.

That's not necessarily the case. Some atheists come from theism, so are quire certain of what it is they are rejecting.

 

[Audie]

Agreed-- but you can define "atheism" as "a rejection of god-claims".

In that a theist claims "[a] God is Real" and the atheist replies, "I do not believe your statement is accurate." Which is a rejection of sorts.

Even simpler.

"Your belief in pink unicorns is stupid."

Unicornist:

"You are an aunicornist! It is because
you are angry at unicorns. But if you were
a real aunicornist you would not care about
unicorns, pink or otherwise. I know well your
kind; you hate unicorns."

 

[Audie]

That's the whole problem, most Christians act as if their God doesn't matter.

What is the problem with at least a tacit understanding
that the emperor has no clothes?

 

[Kartari]

Hi Willamena,

That's not necessarily the case. Some atheists come from theism, so are quire certain of what it is they are rejecting.

I agree. Perhaps it comes down to semantics, but I was distinguishing between the direct rejection of a god or gods (as the OP's fourth poll choice implies) and the rejection of claims about a god or gods. As Bob mentioned, one can reject claims about gods. To reject a god itself, however, is to reject... what, exactly? Until we have evidence of the existence of a given god, we can only reject ideas or claims about said god, and not the god itself which, as far as we can tell, exists only in the human imagination.

 

[Audie]

Hi Willamena,



I agree. Perhaps it comes down to semantics, but I was distinguishing between the direct rejection of a god or gods (as the OP's fourth poll choice implies) and the rejection of claims about a god or gods. As Bob mentioned, one can reject claims about gods. To reject a god itself, however, is to reject... what, exactly? Until we have evidence of the existence of a given god, we can only reject ideas or claims about said god, and not the god itself which, as far as we can tell, exists only in the human imagination.

See rejection of pink unicorn

 

[LuisDantas]

That's not necessarily the case. Some atheists come from theism, so are quire certain of what it is they are rejecting.

It seems to me that in those cases it will be most unusual to reject a god instead of a conception of god.

Rejecting a god, strictly speaking, requires belief in the existence of said god, and therefore excludes atheism proper.

 

[Audie]

It seems to me that in those cases it will be most unusual to reject a god instead of a conception of god.

Rejecting a god, strictly speaking, requires belief in the existence of said god, and therefore excludes atheism proper.

This is rejecting one god, and accepting another-

And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

 

[LuisDantas]

I was talking about atheists, @Audie

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that in those cases it will be most unusual to reject a god instead of a conception of god.

Rejecting a god, strictly speaking, requires belief in the existence of said god, and therefore excludes atheism proper.

I guess I don't understand what is being proposed, then.

 

[Willamena]

Hi Willamena,



I agree. Perhaps it comes down to semantics, but I was distinguishing between the direct rejection of a god or gods (as the OP's fourth poll choice implies) and the rejection of claims about a god or gods. As Bob mentioned, one can reject claims about gods. To reject a god itself, however, is to reject... what, exactly? Until we have evidence of the existence of a given god, we can only reject ideas or claims about said god, and not the god itself which, as far as we can tell, exists only in the human imagination.

We grasp the world in mind, particularly language. "A god" is nothing more than the form, comprehension, and conceptualization of what "a god" means. The general-sense and general-use term "god" encapsulates all instantiations of what the term means to a person, i.e. it is a concept. Theists believe in a particular god or gods with distinguishing characteristics, but atheists (those that reject gods) reject the concept, they reject gods. We can reject claims too, but the official definition usually goes something like "not believing in god or gods," which points directly at the concept rather than claims about the concept.

 

[Audie]

I was talking about atheists, @Audie

So??? ya wanna get tough, does ya????

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me try again.

The question that opens the thread is "Which Definition of Atheism Do You Use"; and it is also asked "why" and "a working philosophy for living".

Far as I can tell, most people (theists and atheists alike) do not really have much of a established personal philosophy for their lives, and I do not expect much of a practical difference to be discernible between the two groups. The most radical theists might be an exception, I suppose. I will admit that it may be an interesting question to attempt to answer, although I think that it would be difficult to try.

Now, about the four options given:

1) Ancient: You do not believe what I believe.

That may be what was once understood by "atheism". I expect that nearly no one uses this definition currently, when awareness of diversity of belief is so undeniable, and it is not terribly difficult to learn of atheism proper.

Most atheists certainly would find this definition applicable, but quite insufficient.


2) Newest: The search for God is futile, so why try.

I don't think that this qualifies as atheism of any form or variety, personally. Nor is it quite apatheism, and less even agnosticism. If anything, it seems to imply some form of frustrated theism.


3) There is no God.

That is a statement, not a belief. It is compatible with strong atheism, but even among atheists it would be an exception instead of a defining parameter.



4) I reject all of your God(s).

Who knows what is meant by such a statement? It would depend strongly on the exact circunstances. In a vacuum, it would probably be a statement of some form of discriminatory theism, certainly not of atheism.

Although it might also be a direct challenge for utterly unconvincing claims for the existence of some for of deity, I suppose.

 

[LuisDantas]

So??? ya wanna get tough, does ya????

That is a question for another occasion, isn't it?


Seriously now, I was just pointing out that your analysis, while reasonable, was explicitly addressing theists, while I was addressing non-theists.

 

[Audie]

That is a question for another occasion, isn't it?


Seriously now, I was just pointing out that your analysis, while reasonable, was explicitly addressing theists, while I was addressing non-theists.

I can take ya on any time, ya swab!

Like now; for lo, my quote explicitly
points out that ya gotta have a god in
order to reject it.

Not only did ya fail to notice that lil
detail but also that it applies equally
to all, while your, you! Only took in
them atheists.

 

[Willamena]

3) There is no God.

That is a statement, not a belief. It is compatible with strong atheism, but even among atheists it would be an exception instead of a defining parameter.

1) and 4) are statements, also. Statement is the form of language that portrays belief. If you believe it, you will state it as the fact you believe it to be--and that also conveys the conviction of your belief.

Sorry, I'm in a semantical mood today.

 

[dingdao]

@dingdao , would you be willing to elaborate on the rationale for choosing those four options?

I think that I might learn a lot about what you understand atheism to be if you do.

I, too, found no grounds for voting at all.

1. You do not believe what I believe: the working definition of most fundamentalist groups.
2. The search for God has been futile, so why try: a definition I found in a library c. '83. Think of it as a soured agnostic.
3. There is no God: entomological, a- (not) theist (believer in God)
4. I reject all your God(s): a personal decision, Bertrand Russel(?), I stated as much "I don't think anyone has it right."
ADD: God is not needed: a favorite of Humanists & Scientists

 

[dingdao]

Hi all,

The prevalence of misunderstandings about atheism, agnosticism, and similar concepts continues to astonish me. Especially since atheism is quite a simple concept to understand.

The definition of an atheist is, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods" (Meriam-Webster). An atheist, very simply, is someone who lacks belief in gods. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The four "definitions" given as choices in the poll are not actual definitions of atheism. It is not an argument against the dissimilar beliefs of others on the basis of their dissimilarity, as the first choice asserts. The "search for God" and its apparent "futility" does not broadly apply to all atheists, and is certainly not a part of the definition of atheism, even if some (but not all) atheists might feel that way. It is not broadly defined as the firm assertion that God or gods do not exist, as the third choice asserts, even if some atheists (called "strong atheists") do assert that this is the case. Nor is it a "rejection" of all gods, strictly speaking, as the fourth choice asserts. To reject something implies that that something is well-defined and real enough to either consider, accept, or reject; rejection therefore requires belief in the object of rejection. An atheist, by contrast, lacks belief in the very notion of gods. So from an atheist's perspective, there is really nothing to reject; hence, atheism cannot be defined as a rejection of gods.

Peace.

Sometimes, it is simpler to claim atheism then it is to explain why you cannot stand any of options available on philosophical grounds.

 

[dingdao]

It seems to me that in those cases it will be most unusual to reject a god instead of a conception of god.

Rejecting a god, strictly speaking, requires belief in the existence of said god, and therefore excludes atheism proper.

You can reject a God on philosophical properties. Such as rejecting the Christian God for Eternal Damnation.

 

[LuisDantas]

1. You do not believe what I believe: the working definition of most fundamentalist groups.

But the time when people called others "atheists" just for holding different beliefs is centuries past, isn't it?

2. The search for God has been futile, so why try: a definition I found in a library c. '83. Think of it as a soured agnostic.

I suppose there are a few of those around, but they are not particularly common. They may easily be the exception, even.

3. There is no God: entomological, a- (not) theist (believer in God)

"Strong" or "hard" atheism. A solid contingent, but very much a subset of the wider group of atheists.

4. I reject all your God(s): a personal decision, Bertrand Russel(?), I stated as much "I don't think anyone has it right."
ADD: God is not needed: a favorite of Humanists & Scientists

This one is better than the previous three, but still portrays atheism as rather more active than it actually is.

It also has elements of apatheism.