Changes

Beginning in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing beyond, many [[agnosticism|agnostics]]/atheists have argued that the [[definition of atheism]] should be defined as a mere lack of belief in God or gods.<ref name="Divine"/><ref name="Definition of atheism"/><ref name="CRI">[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.</ref><ref>Britain is a less religious country than the United States and the online Oxford Dictionaries offers both the narrow/broad definitions of atheism (As noted in a previous footnote the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is a traditional American dictionary, offers a more narrow definition of atheism similar to the definition that major encyclopedias of philosophy use). Oxford Dictionaries: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism]</ref>   

Beginning in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing beyond, many [[agnosticism|agnostics]]/atheists have argued that the [[definition of atheism]] should be defined as a mere lack of belief in God or gods.<ref name="Divine"/><ref name="Definition of atheism"/><ref name="CRI">[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.</ref><ref>Britain is a less religious country than the United States and the online Oxford Dictionaries offers both the narrow/broad definitions of atheism (As noted in a previous footnote the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is a traditional American dictionary, offers a more narrow definition of atheism similar to the definition that major encyclopedias of philosophy use). Oxford Dictionaries: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism]</ref>   

In terms of contemporary definitions of atheism, the ''Webster-Merriam Dictionary'' defines atheism in two ways: "1) a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods 2) a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods."<ref>[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism Atheism], ''Webster-Merriam'' dictionary</ref> The online version of the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' defines atheism as "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."<ref>[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism Atheism], Oxford online dictionary</ref>

In terms of contemporary definitions of atheism, the ''Webster-Merriam Dictionary'' defines atheism in two ways: "1) a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods 2) a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods."<ref>[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism Atheism], ''Webster-Merriam'' dictionary</ref>  

 

The online version of the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' defines atheism as "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."<ref>[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism Atheism], Oxford online dictionary</ref> ''Oxford English Dictionies'' defines atheism as "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."<ref>[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism Atheism], Oxford online dictionary</ref>

The atheist Francois Tremblay wrote in his essay ''Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose'':

{{cquote|Atheism ...is not a positive belief in anything, but a negative concept.

Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, [[ontological]] belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] and [[Atheism and epistemology|epistemological deductions]]. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.

Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, [[ontological]] belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] and [[Atheism and epistemology|epistemological deductions]]. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.