Who gets to decide?

[jojom]

Well. If you want to cut to the chase, the prefix "a" is without, not (anti is against), so a-theist is one without a belief in deities.

Denial and against is an antitheist (which im not sure of that prefix goes with theist)

So someone can be an atheist and not be a antitheist.

Agreed.

 

[McBell]

In another thread (Atheism is not a default position | ReligiousForums.com ) I had reason to go to the American Atheist web site to get their take on the nature of atheism. I had always regarded atheism as the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. But they say No, that isn't right. Atheism is "a lack of belief in gods." As I read it, this means that even if one grows up never hearing about god, the concept of a god, or even the word---one has total ignorance of it---one would be an atheist. This they say is in contrast to the common dictionary definition of atheism, one that's in accord with my view: "atheism is the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods." It is also in contrast to what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

The American Atheist web site then goes on to say . . .

"Why should atheists allow theists [ I presume they feel that those who write definitions are theists] to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists​

In other words, they feel they have the right to define the word because they're the ones to whom it applies.


So what do you think? Do they have a good argument here?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

You do know that some words have more than one definition, right?

 

[jojom]

You do know that some words have more than one definition, right?

Of course. So how does this play in the issue I brought up?

 

[McBell]

Of course. So how does this play in the issue I brought up?

You do know that there is more than one definition for the word "atheist", right?
If you do, I will have to ask why you choose to completely ignore all the other definitions of the word "atheist" in order to make your OP.

If not, I will have to ask you to look up the word to learn the other definitions.

 

[bobhikes]

"Why should atheists allow theists [ I presume they feel that those who write definitions are theists] to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists​

In other words, they feel they have the right to define the word because they're the ones to whom it applies.


So what do you think? Do they have a good argument here?

If so, why?

If not, why not?[/QUOTE]

The problem I see is that they are trying set a definition for all atheists and then force them to use it. This is very much the concept of religion. If you want to be a catholic you must adopt our rules. If you want to be considered an American Atheist you must follow their rules. They American Atheists try to recruit new members with ads. They constantly push the argument of atheism out on the public through various media. They condemn those that don't apply there logic. I would call them a cult religion.

As you can see I believe their argument is flawed in that I define how I see my atheism not them. If they took a vote of all people that believe they are atheists, I doubt there definition would stand, but then again your only an atheist if you believe what they say so maybe it would.

 

[jojom]

You do know that there is more than one definition for the word "atheist", right?
If you do, I will have to ask why you choose to completely ignore all the other definitions of the word "atheist" in order to make your OP.

If not, I will have to ask you to look up the word to learn the other definitions.

I ignored the others, whatever they may be, because they are irrelevant to the purpose of the OP, which was to find out how people here regard the American Atheist argument that they have the right to define the "atheism" because they're the ones to whom it applies.

"So what do you think? Do they have a good argument here?

If so, why?

If not, why not?"​

 

[McBell]

I ignored the others, whatever they may be, because they are irrelevant to the purpose of the OP, which was to find out how people here regard the American Atheist argument that they have the right to define the "atheism" because they're the ones to whom it applies.

"So what do you think? Do they have a good argument here?

If so, why?

If not, why not?"​

Is your "argument" that American Atheists are not allowed to use a definition of "atheist" you dislike?
Or are you complaining that they are doing the exact thing you have to do in the OP?

Seeing as they are using one of the definitions of atheist....
Therefore they are not re-defining the word.

So in a nut shell, your OP does not make any sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope.

You don't agree?

 

[McBell]

Hey, great posts guys. Lots of

After going through them l went to the Online Etymology Dictionary to see what it has to say about the word "atheism," keeping in mind that words often take on new meanings as time goes by.

atheism (n.)
1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." Ancient Greek atheotes meant "ungodliness."
Online Etymology Dictionary​

In any case, I think it relevant to look at atheism as it's been regarded over the years. Wikipedia gives us a brief history:

"Atheism (derived from the Ancient Greek ἄθεος atheos meaning "without gods; godless; secular; denying or disdaining the gods, especially officially sanctioned gods" is the absence or rejection of the belief that deities exist. The English term was used at least as early as the sixteenth century and atheistic ideas and their influence have a longer history. Over the centuries, atheists have supported their lack of belief in gods through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions.

Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BC. Will Durant explains that certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.[citation needed] The Vedas of Ceylon[clarification needed] only admitted the possibility that deities might exist, but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way.[citation needed]

Atheistic notions slowly gained traction in certain intellectual circles in Europe following the Renaissance and Reformation. Atheism was championed by some French Revolutionaries who sought to purge France of religion. Atheism made great inroads following the First and Second World Wars, when Communist regimes promoting state atheism were established around the world. Marxist‒Leninist atheism and similar variations of Marxian thought on religion were influential in Communist governments of the twentieth century and survive to varying degrees among Marxists and in the ideology of states that continue to be governed by forms of communism, such as China, North Korea and Cuba. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, religiosity has re-established itself to varying extents across the former Soviet bloc, while in Western societies, religiosity has broadly been in decline and adherence to an atheist outlook has been growing, with some high profile advocates."
​

So although atheism is certainly "a lack of belief in gods" as the American Atheist organization asserts, today it more befittingly describes a conscious rejection of the notion of a god(s): "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." It's like recognizing that although evolution describes change over time, today we commonly use it to specifically describe such change in living organisms. For evolutionists (people who believe in or support the theory of evolution, and would therefore seemingly have the right to define the word) to insist that "evolution" only denote the broader meaning of the word is to ignore its common meaning and usage. (I recognize that the forgoing isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it will do.)

Therefore, I'm rejecting the American Atheist's definition, and sticking with mine, those in various dictionaries, and that of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism is the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods.​

So basically you are declaring your hypocrisy for all the world to see, right?
i mean, is that not the very same thing your op is whining about?
That the American Atheist group is, just like yourself, choosing a specific definition and ignoring the rest?
How are you any better than the American Atheists?

 

[Bunyip]

I think some atheists are trying too hard to appropriate people who aren't atheists. It's bad enough when they try to insist that agnostics are atheists, even though there is a distinct difference between the two, but I have even seen some apply the label atheist to theists just because they disbelieve in certain gods.

Most atheists are agnostic, agnostics who do not believe God exists are atheist. Agnostic/Gnostic speaks to what a person KNOWS, atheist/theist speaks to what a person BELIEVES. If you do not believe God exists - you are atheist.

No, we aren't. The difference between atheism and agnosticism, which is why they are two different terms to begin with, is that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve. A theist believes, an atheist disbelieves (and according to Stanford, is the denial of the existence a god), but an agnostic does not hold either position. To call us (especially those of us who do not lean either way) atheists is to incorrectly describe our views, is to give false impressions, to ignore our views and positions, and is no different than calling a Christian an atheist because they don't believe in Amun-Ra.

People who don't hold the position of believing in God are atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

So, Atheists demand the right to define themselves, then insist that agnostics (and others) must adhere to their definition, and be counted either amongst them, or amongst the opposition...

Agnostics (and other non-atheist non-theists) of the World, Unite! We have much to gain by rejecting the theist/atheist dichotomy!

Atheism is agnostic,rejecting a simple dichotomy doesn't really make sense - you either believe in God or you don't.

 

[Bunyip]

I think first we must ask is would they even care enough to use either term?

It isn't that simple. I don't know if there is a god or not. There might be, there might not be. To focus simply on the "lack of belief" part is to over simplify my views, for I do not reject the idea of god.

It really is very simple; Do you believe God exists?
If not, you are atheist.

To be honest, I don't think you are being reasonable when you say that people are trying to over simplify - the opposite is true, you are trying to make something very simple more complex than it needs to be. Why you are doing so, I don't really know.

 

[Bunyip]

The bottom line is that whether we define atheism as a belief, a disbelief, a denial, a rejection, a lack of awareness, a positive claim, a negation, a default - whatever - there is still no burden of proof that can not be met by simply pointing to the absence of evidence.
None of those semantic variations serve to magically transfer the burden of proof or in any way render atheism logically untenable.

It is word games, nothing more.

You can not conjure up a God from words alone. And words are not enough.

 

[jojom]

Is your "argument" that American Atheists are not allowed to use a definition of "atheist" you dislike?
Or are you complaining that they are doing the exact thing you have to do in the OP?

Not arguing or complaining about anything.

Seeing as they are using one of the definitions of atheist....
Therefore they are not re-defining the word.

So in a nut shell, your OP does not make any sense.

Okay. Can't force comprehension on you.

 

[jojom]

You don't agree?

I'm agreeing.

 

[McBell]

Not arguing or complaining about anything.

Okay. Can't force comprehension on you.

What is it you think I am not comprehending?

As far as I can tell, the ONLY difference between you and the American Atheist group is the definition of "atheist" you want to cling to whilst ignoring the rest.

 

[jojom]

So basically you are declaring your hypocrisy for all the world to see, right?
i mean, is that not the very same thing your op is whining about?
That the American Atheist group is, just like yourself, choosing a specific definition and ignoring the rest?
How are you any better than the American Atheists?

Whatever makes you feel warm and cozy.

 

[jojom]

What is it you think I am not comprehending?

As far as I can tell, the ONLY difference between you and the American Atheist group is the definition of "atheist" you want to cling to whilst ignoring the rest.

Okay.

 

[McBell]

Whatever makes you feel warm and cozy.

I noticed you did not adress anything in the post you quoted.
Is it because you did not understand it?

 

[jojom]

I noticed you did not adress anything in the post you quoted.

Good noticing there.

Is it because you did not understand it?

Nope. I can't bring myself to care.