Talk:Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

From Conservapedia

Because the words can be used so many different ways, I propose that when we write an article for this encyclopedia we always give the precise definition of every usage of atheist or agnostic and stick to that definition consistently.

In biographical articles, we must report what each person called himself, or what he was called by others, but we still have to be clear about how each person used each term. I'm sorry that this will take us more work, but I don't see any way to avoid it.

Terms are convenient, if we agree on their meanings. When we don't agree, then we have to use the definitions themselves, which is cumbersome. Instead of saying, "Jones was an atheist", we must say:

1. Jones believed that God does not exist; or,
2. Jones was uncertain whether God exists or not

There seems to be a taboo against stating one's position clearly. I hope we as writers will simply ignore this taboo. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

good work, ed! Love it! Ungtss 22:08, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

All usages of atheism are consistent with saying, "God does not exist." a denial of God's existence?

If the person saying "God does not exist." is in denial. Does this denial mean such a person is faced with a fact that is uncomfortable or painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence?

PhilMcAvity 10:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Potentially. Could also mean they've thought it through and decided to deny it because they think it isn't true ... Ungtss 21:07, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Would I be right it assuming that by they've thought it through you mean they have evaluated the evidence an decided that the proposition that God exists isn't true? Would such a conclusion really be a denial or simply someone not believing?

Lets take for example a situation where an individual is told that God does exist. The evidence is then presented. I don't know what evidence. The article God doesn't provide any that could be scientifically tested. Anyway, our individual confronted with this, decides the evidence is not sufficient to prove the existence of God. Is he really in denial or does he simply not believe? Are juries in denial when they acquit because of lack of any evidence, beyond reasonable doubt etc.

PhilMcAvity 15:00, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Two definitions of denial: [1]

1) disaffirmation (the act of asserting that something alleged is not true)

2) denial ((psychiatry) a defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts

In context, I read it in the first sense -- not being in denial, but simply denying (like if you asked me if I were an atheist, I would deny it; but I wouldn't be in denial about it). Would "disaffirmation" be a more specific word for what we're talking about here? Ungtss 15:52, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

The text in the article seems to have been changed since I first questioned the phrase in denial. Are those definitions above really appropriate for the matter at hand? Is disaffirmation i.e. the act of asserting that something alleged is not true[2] really any better? Paraphrasing your 'like if you asked me if I were an atheist, I would deny it; but I wouldn't be in denial about it' to 'if an atheist were asked if he was a Christian he would deny it; but he wouldn't be in denial about it' sounds fine but doesn't help much. At the moment the article includes as a definition of atheism: This can be mere lack of belief, as when one is not sure whether God exists or not. It can also be a positive disaffirmation of His existence. The first when one is not sure whether God exists or not is surely agnosticism? The person has obviously come to the conclusion they are not sure. Describe the belief of someone who doesn't believe the moon is made of cheese. Would it be better to describe that as

a positive disaffirmation that the moon is made of cheese

or simply

not believing that the moon is made of cheese?

Similarly: Theism, a positive disaffirmation of the non-existence of God. A bit silly really. A clearer definition would be: Theism, a belief that God exists. So why not simply: Atheism, a belief that God does not exist? Minimally this may simply be the absence of belief, for example someone whose culture or community doesn't have the concept of God. A kind of implicit atheism. One cannot believe that something that one has not thought of can exist. On the other hand someone who had examined and/or scientifically tested the evidence and decided that God does not exist would have a kind of explicit atheism. From this may I tentitively suggest:

The core meaning of atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

Either because a person lives in a culture or community with no concept of God (implicit atheism).

The person has examined the evidence for the existence of God and decided that God does not exist (explicit atheism).

Agnosticism, after considering the matter not being sure whether God exists or not.

PhilMcAvity 11:05, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate the discussion!

Describe the belief of someone who doesn't believe the moon is made of cheese. Would it be better to describe that as a positive disaffirmation that the moon is made of cheese

or simply not believing that the moon is made of cheese?

What we've stumbled on here is a perenial source of rhetorical argument from both sides of the theistic divide, and it's one I had hoped to avoid in the article. Atheists typically compare theism to "the moon being made of cheese," "flying spaghetti monsters," and such, in an effort to compare theism to outlandish, obscure, minority opinions, and implicitly argue "Why do I need to even RESPOND to such an absurd assertion!?" But the reality is, there are no cultures in which a concept of God is absent. In fact, there are no cultures where atheism is a majority opinion.[3] The idea, then, that atheism is the "default" and theism is the "obscure minority opinion that doesn't even need to be responded to" is simply untrue. The vast majority of people on Earth believe in one god or another, and atheism is and always has been the minority opinion among people -- an opinion that has always existed as a reaction to the majority opinion of theism. I've been a lot of places, and never met a person who had no "concept of God." Everybody has a concept of God. The differences lie in what that concept is, and whether or not they believe there's a reality corresponding to the concept.

On the other hand, there is also a group of rather caustic theists who turn around and use these facts to argue that "there are no bona fide atheists" -- that all people know God exists, but just choose to deny his existence to serve their own purposes.

Both of these points of view are hairy, and I'd like to avoid having the article take either side, if you know what I mean ...

That being said, I propose:

The core meaning of atheism is the belief that God does not exist. The can be because either:

1) A person believes that the burden of proof lies with the theist and the theist has failed to meet that burden (weak atheism);

2) A person believes that there is positive evidence to support atheism (strong atheism);

Agnosticism, after considering the matter not being sure whether God exists or not. Ungtss 12:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't trying to get into a rhetorical argument but was trying to illustrate that using terms like in denial or dissafirmation are clumsy where something like a simple believe or do not believe are clearer and perhaps more objective. I don't know of a culture in which a concept of God is absent either. Implicit atheism is perhaps more theoretical. What about people who have grown up in an atheist enviroment? They are perhaps simply atheists because everyone else is but have never given the matter much thought. No doubt there are also people who believe in God because everyone else does but have never given the matter much thought.

I'll certainly go along with your first definition. Though I would question the terms weak atheism and strong atheism. Someone who has considered the evidence and decided there is no God is making a pretty strong statement.

The second definition poses the problem of proving that something doesn't exist. Have you any sources for this positive evidence for the non-existence of God i.e. to support atheism? Are the people producing this evidence taken seriously by a broad range of people, in particular other atheists? I'd certainly be interested in the methodology used to prove that something doesn't exist. Theists believe God exists and one would assume that the burden of proof is on them. I have it from a very wise man that a "source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim..." [4]. Your definition of agnosticism is fine. Atheism in simply a belief that God does not exist. If an atheist is not sure about that then they are an agnostic. The reason why an atheist is an atheist is surely irrelevant as far as the definition goes?

PhilMcAvity 08:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Points well taken ... just as an aside -- not "my" article or claims by any stretch of the imagination. my first edits to the page were in response to your comments ... Ungtss 23:15, 23 September 2007 (EDT)