Re-Defining ATHEISM

Just Arrived Joined: May 23, 2008 Posts: 3

I don't know about the rest of you but I am of the mind that Atheism needs a new definition. I think we need to get away from the word "BELIEF" as much as humanly possible. Belief for us I think sends the wrong connotation and message because "RELIGION" is far too closely, attached to the word as well. "Belief, and Religion" are semantical cousins when it comes to how people interpret their meanings...no matter how many times you try and use the standard cold definition of each word. I think we need a new way to define atheism in a very short concise sentence as much as possible.

The definition of Atheism as it currently stands is as follows; Atheism: "The BELIEF that there is no GOD; DENIAL of the existence of a supreme being.

Atheist: A person who BELIEVES there is no god.

You do see the inherent problems with the words contained in these definitions?

They suggest that WE as ATHEIST's are simply in denial that there is a GOD.

First, I do not think any of us DENY there is a GOD. We state there is NO GOD. PERIOD.

We simply have not been convinced there has been any empirical, logical, or physical evidence proving the existence of a supernatural deity that is the existential driving force behind existence of the universe and mankind.

So my new definition of ATHEISM goes as follows:

ATHEISM: the stated contention that there is no empirical, logical, or physical evidence proving the existence of any supernatural deity that is the existential driving force behind the existence of the universe and mankind.

In my view...my definition lends far more credence to our hold that ATHEISM is more philosophy than religion. And like I said it eliminated the words commonly associated with religious minded persons. So that when you state your an ATHEIST and defend it...you don't use the word BELIEF. Because this to me is where the battleground truly is in society. Because the idea itself, the concept simply while it is the most fundamental and important..is just not how humans interpret and think about such matters. Different words true do not always convey different meaning because they are dependent on context...but different words convey different connotations different thoughts..different arguments..and may thusly lead people to new ways of thinking about religion/GOD. Which is what I think our point is...THINK. JUST THINK. That's all we want you to do, THINK. No more no less, you don't have to get up off the couch.

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:07 am

RealDre wrote:

I think we need to get away from the word "BELIEF" as much as humanly possible.

In my early days on these forums I was very opposed to using the word "belief" to describe my position, I've grown a little more comfortable with the word over time, even though as you suggest, there's probably better descriptors.

Quote:

Atheist: A person who BELIEVES there is no god.

I prefer atheism described as a person who lacks a belief in the existence of a god or gods. Let’s be honest, we all have beliefs/opinions concerning the god concept, such as I see enough correlation between the historical progression of god belief to make a strong inference that it’s nothing more then an anthropomorphic projection of our traditions and cultures. God doesn’t point to some external entity but instead points to our nature.

Quote:

We state there is NO GOD. PERIOD.

The term god is to obscure for me personally to make that positive of a statement. I would say something like, “It’s seems very unlikely given what I understand about human god concepts to assume any of them point to an external entity”.

Quote:

ATHEISM: the stated contention that there is no empirical, logical, or physical evidence proving the existence of any supernatural deity that is the existential driving force behind the existence of the universe and mankind.

Not bad.

Just Arrived Joined: May 23, 2008 Posts: 3

MockingGods wrote:

RealDre wrote:

I think we need to get away from the word "BELIEF" as much as humanly possible.

In my early days on these forums I was very opposed to using the word "belief" to describe my position, I've grown a little more comfortable with the word over time, even though as you suggest, there's probably better descriptors.

Quote:

Atheist: A person who BELIEVES there is no god.

I prefer atheism described as a person who lacks a belief in the existence of a god or gods. Let’s be honest, we all have beliefs/opinions concerning the god concept, such as I see enough correlation between the historical progression of god belief to make a strong inference that it’s nothing more then an anthropomorphic projection of our traditions and cultures. God doesn’t point to some external entity but instead points to our nature.

Quote:

We state there is NO GOD. PERIOD.

The term god is to obscure for me personally to make that positive of a statement. I would say something like, “It’s seems very unlikely given what I understand about human god concepts to assume any of them point to an external entity”.

Quote:

ATHEISM: the stated contention that there is no empirical, logical, or physical evidence proving the existence of any supernatural deity that is the existential driving force behind the existence of the universe and mankind.

Not bad.

Yeah took me a while to find the right words to come up with a new standard definition..getting away from the word BELIEF.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Apr 21, 2004 Posts: 621

I don't claim there is no God, and I'm an atheist.

I do like your definition for the most part, though.

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

Choc wrote:

I don't claim there is no God, and I'm an atheist.

I do like your definition for the most part, though.

Right. Simply not liking god is enough to be an atheist. Saying that you don't want to live a life of religion because of some old book without saying that there isn't a god is also enough to be an atheist. Could you incorporate this into your definition?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Apr 21, 2004 Posts: 621

Not liking God is enough to be an atheist? I wouldn't go that far, but I see what you're saying. I think lots of definitions go way too far, claiming that atheists are somehow inherently rational or want such-and-such for humanity or whatever. Pretty much just a lack of belief in God is all it takes, as far as I know.

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:37 am

The definition of atheism, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "a disbelief in the existence of a deity." (see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) To say atheism is "the belief that there is no god." is the same thing as saying it is "the disbelief in a god." (It's a tautology) In either case it affirms a negative.

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

Quote:

Not liking God is enough to be an atheist?

If you don't think you need a god regardless of whether or not you think one exists, that would fulfill the root definition of the word atheism, which means "without god". A person doesn't have to discount a god's existence to be without a god.

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:58 am

Changing the definition of atheism isn't going to change how a person views an atheist. You either have a god in your life or you don't. If you don't, no matter what you call it, no matter what the word 'atheist' means, those that believe will still be upset that you don't have a god in your life.

So what is the point of changing it?

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

The point of changing it is that Christians often straw-man atheists based on what they think atheists believe or what they think their listeners think most atheists believe. They often say that atheists say "there is no god". The reality is that most atheists do not say definitely that "there is no god" but that they still do not have a god. Still, Christian apologists like to straw-man us and the criticize the sometimes intentionally misunderstood nature of atheism.

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:44 pm

Cygnus wrote:

The point of changing it is that Christians often straw-man atheists based on what they think atheists believe or what they think their listeners think most atheists believe. They often say that atheists say "there is no god". The reality is that most atheists do not say definitely that "there is no god" but that they still do not have a god. Still, Christian apologists like to straw-man us and the criticize the sometimes intentionally misunderstood nature of atheism.

But explain how changing the definition will reshape a theists view of someone that doesn't hold the same belief. A group of people that hold no belief in a god could be called XXXXX's but it doesn't change the opinion of those holding a belief.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 60

RealDre wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am of the mind that Atheism needs a new definition. I think we need to get away from the word "BELIEF" as much as humanly possible. Belief for us I think sends the wrong connotation and message because "RELIGION" is far too closely, attached to the word as well. "Belief, and Religion" are semantical cousins when it comes to how people interpret their meanings...no matter how many times you try and use the standard cold definition of each word. I think we need a new way to define atheism in a very short concise sentence as much as possible.

The definition of Atheism as it currently stands is as follows; Atheism: "The BELIEF that there is no GOD; DENIAL of the existence of a supreme being.

Atheist: A person who BELIEVES there is no god.

You do see the inherent problems with the words contained in these definitions?

They suggest that WE as ATHEIST's are simply in denial that there is a GOD.

First, I do not think any of us DENY there is a GOD. We state there is NO GOD. PERIOD.

We simply have not been convinced there has been any empirical, logical, or physical evidence proving the existence of a supernatural deity that is the existential driving force behind existence of the universe and mankind.

So my new definition of ATHEISM goes as follows:

ATHEISM: the stated contention that there is no empirical, logical, or physical evidence proving the existence of any supernatural deity that is the existential driving force behind the existence of the universe and mankind.

In my view...my definition lends far more credence to our hold that ATHEISM is more philosophy than religion. And like I said it eliminated the words commonly associated with religious minded persons. So that when you state your an ATHEIST and defend it...you don't use the word BELIEF. Because this to me is where the battleground truly is in society. Because the idea itself, the concept simply while it is the most fundamental and important..is just not how humans interpret and think about such matters. Different words true do not always convey different meaning because they are dependent on context...but different words convey different connotations different thoughts..different arguments..and may thusly lead people to new ways of thinking about religion/GOD. Which is what I think our point is...THINK. JUST THINK. That's all we want you to do, THINK. No more no less, you don't have to get up off the couch.

Atheism: the non worshiping and not asserting that there is a god/gods.
Atheist : A person who is not worshiping god/gods and is not asserting that there is a god.

Asserting is a better word then “believe” because its not absolute.

You overindexed the word atheist most atheist are not atheist because they are incapable of thinking (babies). You are describing rationalism rationality is atheistic atheism is simply a single answer to one question “is there a god ?” not a philosophical standpoint.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 60

Renee wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

The point of changing it is that Christians often straw-man atheists based on what they think atheists believe or what they think their listeners think most atheists believe. They often say that atheists say "there is no god". The reality is that most atheists do not say definitely that "there is no god" but that they still do not have a god. Still, Christian apologists like to straw-man us and the criticize the sometimes intentionally misunderstood nature of atheism.

But explain how changing the definition will reshape a theists view of someone that doesn't hold the same belief. A group of people that hold no belief in a god could be called XXXXX's but it doesn't change the opinion of those holding a belief.

Yes words are only numbers (in a positional number system where the base of the system is the number of ciphers in a given langue ABCD…). I think the main point concerned the point that Christians can straw man you saying “atheism is contradictory because you believe in not believing ...”

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

Renee wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

The point of changing it is that Christians often straw-man atheists based on what they think atheists believe or what they think their listeners think most atheists believe. They often say that atheists say "there is no god". The reality is that most atheists do not say definitely that "there is no god" but that they still do not have a god. Still, Christian apologists like to straw-man us and the criticize the sometimes intentionally misunderstood nature of atheism.

But explain how changing the definition will reshape a theists view of someone that doesn't hold the same belief. A group of people that hold no belief in a god could be called XXXXX's but it doesn't change the opinion of those holding a belief.

I am NOT saying that; the changing of the definition is only for the sake of argument.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore