| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bear" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2005 11:51:09 AM |
| Object: |
Defining Atheism |
From Austin Cline
Disagreement Over the Definition of Atheism
Question:
If atheism is such a basic concept, what is there so much disagreement over
how to define it?
Response:
There are many rancorous debates over the definition of atheism, with quite
a few theists insisting that atheism should be defined in a very narrow
sense: the denial of the existence of any gods. When theists simply assume
that this is what atheism is, there can be a lot of miscommunication and
misunderstanding in their discussions and debates with atheists.
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense
of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they
are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with
them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not
only basic logic but also how human beliefs operate.
A factor which many atheists will encounter is the fact that so many common
dictionaries simply fail to provide a full and adequate definition of
atheism.
Prejudices and assumptions about atheists are quickly confirmed when someone
picks up a small dictionary and reads that atheism is "wickedness" and
"denial of God," something often encountered.
Fortunately, larger and more comprehensive dictionaries provide more
accurate explanations of what atheism is. The use of poor dictionaries can
be addressed by pointing people to the fact that all of these superior
sources indicate something different. If someone is interested in an honest
conversation, then they will acknowledge that sources like the Oxford
English Dictionary, among many others, are more informative and
authoritative than their pocket paperback.
Unfortunately, not every person entering such discussions does so with
intellectual honesty. Thus, another reason often seen for insisting that
only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to
avoid shouldering the principal burden of proof. You see, if atheism is
simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the burden of proof lies
solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief
is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and
reasonable.
There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing
only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the
fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods,
not simply one god - and an atheist can often approach different gods in
different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god
in question.
Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the
existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and
misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been
defined, so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed.
The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be
something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that
whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it.
This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or
denial.
As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to
be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and
explain what is meant by the key term "god." Until that happens, no serious,
productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the
theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said
in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by
"god" will we be able to seriously critique their concepts.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining Atheism |
18 Nov 2005 01:37:12 PM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> suddenly spluttered:
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense
of atheism simply does not exist?
Because it isn't their <expletive deleted> place to define it.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining Atheism |
18 Nov 2005 08:27:55 PM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
From Austin Cline
Disagreement Over the Definition of Atheism
Question:
If atheism is such a basic concept, what is there so much disagreement over
how to define it?
I don't know, maybe because some people have *way* too much time
on their hands?
-jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining Atheism |
18 Nov 2005 09:27:50 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 12:27:55 -0800, "jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bear wrote:
From Austin Cline
Disagreement Over the Definition of Atheism
Question:
If atheism is such a basic concept, what is there so much disagreement over
how to define it?
I don't know, maybe because some people have *way* too much time
on their hands?
Austin's article points out that the disagreement is between atheists
who know what their own position is, and theists who refuse to grant
that, insisting it is something else.
There wouldn't be any disagreement if the theists who do that, had a
smidgeon of decency.
-jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining Atheism |
19 Nov 2005 12:52:22 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
: Austin's article points out that the disagreement is between atheists
: who know what their own position is, and theists who refuse to grant
: that, insisting it is something else.
:
: There wouldn't be any disagreement if the theists who do that, had a
: smidgeon of decency.
I'm in total agreement.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
