jlowder

Many people who identify themselves as atheists argue that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God. In alt.atheism terminology, they are "weak atheists." However, in my experience, the majority of the population (at least in the U.S.) equates atheism with the belief that God does not exist ("strong atheism" in alt.atheism terminology), and equates agnosticism with the lack of belief in both the existence and nonexistence of God.

Here's the question: if the majority of people who speak English define atheism one way, why fight it? The meaning of words can change over time, so why not just adopt strong atheism as the definition of atheism?

Someone once said, "Pick your battles." I, for one, don't see any point at all in arguing over the meaning of atheism. If the theistic majority wants to define atheism as the positive belief that there is no God, I'm happy to stipulate the definition. Regardless of what one calls the belief that God does not exist, there are several arguments for that belief (pain and pleasure, evolution, divine hiddenness, mind-brain dependence, etc.). Those arguments should be the focus of our discussion, not petty disputes over definitions.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder,
An "atheist" regardless of whose definition you adopt

P.S. See Ted Drange's essay, "<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/" target="_blank">Atheism, Agnosticism, and Noncognitivism</a>" for an excellent overview of the definitions of these words.

Jayhawker Soule

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Thank you! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

jj

Well, if we accept what you (incorrectly, I suspect) assert is the popular definition, then according to some lame court decisions, only people who positively assert that god does not exist are covered under the establishment clause. Those who take the "weak" position have no civil right.

Speaking as one of those people who "just do not believe" and who won't make any assertion at all on faith (note, claiming "there is absolutely no such thing as a god" is JUST AS MUCH a proclimation of faith as "there is a god"), chosing not to believe that for which there is no evidence, instead, I find that position rather offensive.

You'd restrict US citizenship, in effect, to those who make a decision of belief, and reject those who simply make a logical conclusion.

Why would you want to do that?

wordsmyth

I'm agnostic. Agnosticism to me means that I don't believe in God, but I'm open to the possibility.

"I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means."
- Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial, 1925.

Thanx Clarence, I couldn't have said it better.


Atheist to me means someone who does not believe in God(s) nor do they even accept the possibility.

"This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."
- Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), upon reading a young physicist's paper

Philosoft

WRT 'atheism' as a positive belief, there's simply too much nuance to define 'atheism' so narrowly. JLowder, you may or may not be right about how the majority of the population defines 'atheism' (frankly, I don't see how you can make a claim one way or the other), but even if you're right, most atheists in the US are likely to be [strongly] atheistic (using your preferred definition) only toward the Christian God-concept. I might be [strongly] atheistic towards the Christian God-concept but have little or no knowledge of Krishna. Does that make me agnostic towards Krishna? I don't think so, according to Huxley. Non-congntivist? No, because it is possible that Krishna is a being with a definite description and, thus, a concept. Atheistic? Technically, yes, since I lack the necessary information to make a positive claim, I am a de facto atheist. What else would you call them?

jlowder

I feel very comfortable asserting that the popular definition of atheism is the "strong atheism" version.

This doesn't sound correct. What court decisions are your referring to?

The position you find offensive isn't a position I hold. I'm not advocating that anyone be stripped of their constitutional right to believe or not believe as they see fit.

I do disagree with your claim about it taking faith to believe there is no God, but that is outside the scope of this topic.

I don't want to do that.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

jlowder

Frankly, I am surprised there is a question about this. One frequently encounters claims among atheists about the need to "educate" the general public about the 'correct' definition of atheism. And my own personal experience in talking to members of the general public is that they do equate atheism with "strong atheism" and agnosticism with "weak atheism."

You wouldn't be an agnostic according to Huxley, but why should Huxley's opinions have any weight today? The meaning of words change over time. So why not instead adopt the more opular definition of agnosticm? According to that defnition, you would be an agnostic with respect to Krishna.

With respect to belief in Krishna, according to popular usage, such a person would not be an atheist, but an agnostic.

Again, this goes back to the question, "How should we define a word?" Should we rely on historical usage? Popular usage? Something else? I have argued that we should stipulate common usage and find something more useful to argue with theists about.

vixstile

The original definition of agnosticism had little to do with god belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, knowledge of any kind, not just theistic.

A=without or lacking
(A)gnoticism=without or lacking knowledge

A=without or lacking
(A)theism=without or lacking theistic belief

You can be both an atheist as well as agonistic at the same time, they don't conflict in any way

I would also like to add; The definitions of words mite change frequently, but syntax doesn't. The definition of theist is the same as it has always was. Slapping an A in front of a word still means "without or lack of" what ever that word is
[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile to add some stuff]

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

jlowder

Vixstile, from a historical perspective, your message is 100% correct. But I don't think your definitions match the way the words are used today. The question I'm asking is this: why defend a non-standard definition of a word when there are more important things worth arguing about?

vixstile