The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Re-Defining Atheism

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.

Tags: belief, re-defining atheism

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by It's just Matt on December 21, 2008 at 4:25pm

I believe I do not believe in god(s). :) sorry couldn't resist.

I can partially see TJ's point of view, however the posts and points provided by George and Don are logical,valid, and proven by fact of defining definitions.

Saying I don't believe Atlantis exists doesn't give any claim as to say I'm denying the lost city could exist, I'm denying the idea or notion that the fable city was anything more than literature.

Communication is a wonderful thing and progresses with man's understanding of the universe around him.
It's also a great source of confusion and frustration when others can't feel or know what you are trying to say or convey to them.

I know I didn't contribute much to this eternal debate, just wanted a brief reminder that we are powerful enough beings to have such communication available to us.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on December 21, 2008 at 6:32pm

Don: Language is a human miracle. In the last 10,000 years, we have gained dominion (natural, not biblical) over earthly life by the power of our minds. And our mind's greatest tool is language, because it has been through linguistic communication that we have marshalled and asserted our collective power.

Writing is the highest form of language. Writing is thought made visible, made transmittable. The great British novelist (and freethinker), E.M. Forster, once wrote, "How do I know what I think until I see what I say?"

This is precisely why I detest 'net / IM / SMS shorthand, and have an especially venomous hatred of smilies. It's corrupting our language. People counter that with it being normal and healthy linguistic evolution. Bullshit, its devolving.

Loss of linguistic depth and breadth => loss of ability to understand complex concepts => loss of ability to think critically and analytically => loss of ability to think

We have just bred a generation of retards that can't even construct simple formal sentences. These people will eventually reach the age where they enter the political arena. This is scary.

It does have its upside - employers are far more eager to hire a mid 40's guy like me ahead of younger kids who's paper qualifications bury me (personally, I wouldn't wipe my arse with their degrees - there's nothing more dangerous than a high distinction hotshot in the real world, especially in IT)

20 years ago, once you hit 40 you were a has been. Not any more, thanks to this corruption of language.

T-shirt slogan: "Fuck the whales, save the language"

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by It's just Matt on December 21, 2008 at 7:42pm

Men of knowledge are the first to admit they have much to learn. I view myself as a man of language. I have much to learn and can evolve my communications skills several fold, as I continue to try to accomplish.

Texting letters really agitate me as well. It's being lazy nothing else and only shows the irresponsibility of young humans. It doesn't help we have commercials support these acts of sloth. I even know someone who spoke like that because she texted so much. Tried to explain to her the obvious fact that a letter and a single syllable take the same amount of time to speak. So not only was she being lazy but ignorant as well.

Overall, however the masses of the world are more educated when it comes to communication. More people can speak and write than any generations in the past.
Yet with this mass understanding of communication there are people who still choose to "de-evolve" as Felch puts it.

Just as I try to see everyone's perspective, I agree there are groups of people taking modern communication for granite. But overall the evolution of communication is undeniable and hopefully it's continual evolution will lead to the extinction of miss-understanding with not believing in something.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Nugent on December 22, 2008 at 4:42pm

This is a very interesting discussion. Here are my thoughts.

Atheism is a belief. We can never know anything with certainty.

Atheism is not merely a lack of belief. If it was, then inanimate objects would be atheists.

If you want to describe atheism without using the word belief, you could say that it is rejecting the idea that gods exist.

Atheism also includes a set of positive beliefs, which necessarily follow from rejecting the idea that gods exist.

These include the beliefs that we as natural beings are responsible for discovering the nature of reality, and for deciding how best to live together ethically.

And it usually also includes shared beliefs about the usefulness of rational thinking, science and secular society.

I don't think we should hide from the word atheist.

We should defend and promote it with integrity and pride.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Nugent on December 23, 2008 at 12:23am

Don, I understand where you are coming from with this.

Many atheists today choose to interpret the word "atheism" to mean simply a lack of belief. This interpretation has its uses in, for example, shifting the burden of proof in debates. But I believe that this is a mistake, both etymologically and practically.

THE LABEL

The idea that atheism is not a belief is based on breaking the word "atheism" into "a-" (meaning absence of) and "-theism" (meaning belief in a god).

But that is not how the word evolved. The word "theism" did not exist when the word "atheism" entered the English language.

The word "atheism" began as "atheos" (meaning godless, in ancient Greek). The "-ism" was later added onto it (or, technically, "-isme", in French, before being translated into English).

The correct breakdown is "athe-" (from godless) and "-ism" (meaning, broadly, a set of related beliefs about something).

Etymologically, atheism is a set of related beliefs about godlessness, or the absence of gods. It is the "-ism" of godlessness, not the "a-" of theism.

THE CONCEPT

More importantly, the concept of atheism (the idea that the label points to) is in practical terms a belief system.

Atheism exists within our minds, along with our other beliefs. The concept loses its usefulness, and arguably becomes meaningless, if we stretch it to apply to inanimate objects.

In practical terms, atheism and theism only become real issues when a thinking being becomes aware of the idea that gods may or may not exist, and forms one or more beliefs about whether or not the idea is true.

It is true that the atheist response involves an absence of believing that gods exist. But that does not mean that we have a complete absence of any beliefs about the idea of the existence of gods.

Atheists differ in how we define our atheism, and each of these self-definitions is a reflection of our many individual beliefs.

Even the assertion that "atheism is not a belief" is itself a belief. It is one of the many beliefs that fall within the category of related beliefs that together is "atheism".

USING THE WORD

I agree with you on this point, Don.

In the long term, the best way to remove those pejorative connotations is to gradually incorporate the word atheism into normal discourse. In doing this, we have to judge every circumstance on its own merits.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Morris on December 23, 2008 at 10:35am

There is nothing wrong with the word believe. I believe Tokyo is in Japan. I believe that cats have tails. I believe that beliefs need to be the subject of justifying evidence. What exactly is wrong with any of the three previous sentences?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dre Smith on December 30, 2008 at 11:32am

This thread has turned out to be far greater than I imangined.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stormy on January 1, 2009 at 2:13am

I think that being an Atheist does not completely define a person. I'm beginning to see that I've entered another chasm, which is not much different from the one I tired of which was arguing with Theists. Atheists are defined by their various philosophies. I have mine and could easily find issues to disagree with concerning various philosophies. Surely there is a truth in one philosophy. I know I have not been posting much lately and this is because I was in for a rude awakening when I discovered those varying philosophies can be considered beliefs just as religions are.

I really thought that my rejection in religions gave me a more solid relationship with others who have rejected the obvious fantasy of religion but I am beginning to see that we are really more different from we are alike due to the beliefs in differing philosophies. Surely there must be a truth and in that truth there would not be belief as there appears to be in differing philosophies.

Stormy

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BB on January 1, 2009 at 3:06am

Atheists tend to be a diverse group. We don't generally have a dogma or a "holy text". Because of this, this lack of an authority or a set of codified rules to follow, we have to figure things out for ourselves. We have to decide for ourselves who we are, what we believe, why we believe it.

As for truth, truth is a complicated beast to grasp. It's a fuzzy word. There may be some objective truth, but for the vague ambiguous areas we are able to grasp with our limited abilities there may not be a truth that is not subjective. Whether it is morality, culture or taste in food, there may not be an objective answer... just preference. Enter philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

All atheists share one simple thing... lack of a belief in god. Beyond that, it is fair game. We may have far more disagreements then theists will due to the fact that we aren't following some imposed game plan. We have to choose. We choose what we believe for a variety of reasons (good and bad), and finding common ground can be rough.

I tend to advocate critical thinking, logic and reason far more than I do atheism. I feel that with the ability to disagree, debate and discuss, the differences in "philosophy" and belief are smoothed under the sandpaper of rational discourse.

~BB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stormy on January 1, 2009 at 9:34am

Don,

Your suggestion that Atheists had to believe in their acquired knowledge started me thinking about the word 'believe' and I discovered that Atheists do 'believe' as we all share differing philosophies.

Since all differing philosophies cannot be a complete truth, and surely there must be an objective truth, then it would be correct to say that Atheists believe in something, their philosophy.

I think that only a real truth could be a true knowledge which requires no 'belief' system and be considered knowledge which I think requires only acceptance.

Would you agree that Atheists have beliefs?

I think those varying philosophies can be just as much fantasy as religions unless there is an objective truth.

I find it fascinating that our minds can create such situations that escaping 'belief' becomes such an odyssey.

What is your philosophy? Rhetorical question.

Stormy

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tedster on January 1, 2009 at 7:47pm

I think we do, but it isn't always viewed as the best form of critical thinking.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Kane on January 1, 2009 at 8:47pm

The Atheist Nexus site is exceedingly difficult to follow because there are so many folders on similar or overlapping topics. So please excuse me if this point has been raised recently, but atheist belief is of the everyday type, like a belief that the sun will rise or that the economy will continue to decline in 2009. That is, it is an empirical conclusion based on available evidence, while religious belief is based on faith in entities for which there is no evidence.

The important difference between the two is that every empirical conclusion could possibly be wrong, even if the odds of it are very small. Any atheist will tell you that they will abandon the atheist conclusion if real gods ever show up, and prove their existence. But I have never gotten a straight answer from any Christian to the question of what would prove to them that their god-belief is wrong.

So it is a significant error to equate religious faith with the atheist conclusion. People must change their empirical conclusions to accommodate new evidence. If they alter their religious beliefs to accommodate new evidence, then their faith has failed.