The definition of atheism

I know this has been discussed here before, but I just looked it up in another dictionary and I still think that people are using this word incorrectly.The dictionary says that the definition of atheism is the belief that there is no god.People on this forum have said that this is incorrect. They’ve said that atheist are ‘without a belief in god’ but are not ‘with a belief in no god’. The claim is as follows:A-: without
Theism: a belief in god.I couldn’t argue with that because I didn’t really know where the word came from and that claim seemed pretty good.Then, I saw the following line in the dictionary under the definition of atheism:

quote:

---

{< Gk athe(os) godless + -ISM}

---

from The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, The Unabridged Edition, Published in New York by Random House, Inc. 1983 page 93This says, to me, that the claim that atheism means ‘without a belief in god’ but not ‘with a belief in no god’ is wrong. The word is greek in origin and is actually a belief that god doesn’t exist.Why do people who are without a belief in god but not with a belief in no god want to be called atheists, even thought that’s not what the word really means?I’ve read on this forum that they want to take back the word and to stop the christians from misusing it.Why change the meaning of the word? Why not come up with a new word? Or find the word that does mean without a belief in god?

What convinced you? Is it just lack of evidence?Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existnace. Actually, I don't think its possible to prove that something doesn't exist, outside of some wacky math problem. So, knowing that god doesn't exist without evidence of his non-existance is a belief, much like any other religious belief.Also, seeing a lack of evidence for the existance of god and then claiming that he does not exist is an Argument from Incredulity. God connot be scientifically/objectively observed, perhaps science cannot detect everything that exists. It seems that the atheist puts too much faith in science and their own senses to be able to detect everything that exists, and makes the huge assumption that if they cannot detect it then it does not exist. But the cults have specific beliefs and rules, or perhaps a creed that states its beliefs. So when I say that I'm Catholic, you should have a pretty good idea of my beliefs. But, if after learning about me, you found out that I didn’t think Jesus was the son of god(which I do, btw), wouldn’t you question me saying I was Catholic?This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 07-17-2005 10:20 PM

I'll have to look around and see if I can find some posts/posters who have made the claim. I though they would reply but it seems they aren't defending their position. All I've gotten is athiest who fit the definition, I was hoping to get some answers to the questions I asked from the atheists who don't fit the definition.Basically, IIRC, what they say is that 'a belief in no god' is making a claim to know that god doesn't exist. They say that this can't be known, which I agree with. Their 'belief' is that because they have no seen any evidence to suggest that god exists, then they will remain without a belief in his existance, but, they do not make the claim that he does not exist.

like what? sure there is, here's what we believe.

quote:

---

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

​

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

​

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

---

Even though this is the Argument from Incredulity, I somewhat agree with this statement. Perhaps god does exist and he is very good and very powerful, but humans have made an error in descibing him to each other. Or maybe we can't understand what all-powerful is as it it seems to defy logic.Notice that benevolent is not in the creed, nor other beliefs that sometimes are but should not be assumed. These are extraneous beliefs that aren't neccessary, and they do very from person to person. But, these are the core beliefs, the base of the religion and can be assumed when a person says they're catholic.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 07-18-2005 12:08 AM

I don't think I'm capable of that and the reply would be off topic.

So do you call yourself an atheist?

I don't understand what that sentance means. The Argument From Personal AstonishmentEither god doesn't exist or words don't have meaning, OR we aren't observing the world in its entirety, or perhaprs we aren't observing it accurately. Just because you can't see how its possible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, that is the argument from incredulity.

But the cap doesn't fit, according to the definition. Putting a label on yourself gives other people an idea of you beliefs. It doesn't mean that you have the exact same viewpoint as everyone else who is wearing that label. But, the fundamental beliefs of that label should be had. You shouldn't call yourself an atheist if you don't hold the belief that there is no god. Unless you're interested in changing the definition, or broadening it. Which is why I asked the questions in the OP.

Yeah, and the language changes faster than the book does. I'm not advocating that the definitions of words should be immutable. I am interested in why the people who are ‘without a belief in god’ but not ‘with a belief in no god’ choose, in particular, the word atheist to describe themselves. I was thinking it might be for shock value, they pick it because of the negetive connotation. I dunno, maybe they don't have a better word, although I think agnostic would work better. I just don't get it.

Thanks, ass. The way you use words, the dictionary might not help anyways (see OP). Besides, its not that I don't know what the words mean, its that they don't make sense together and the sentence is ambiguous. Among his believers, god is constantly between sessions for good? or are you saying that god is constantly between sessions for 'good among his believers'? Either way, I still don't know what you mean. Why don't you just tell me what you mean? Its impossible to see that it is impossible for god to exist.

oh, i'm sorry that I misunderstood you because you spelled something wrong. I guess that's my fault. IMHO, perfect plain english would be SPELLED CORRECTLY. No, it still doesn't. I don't see how god intercedes for good, and there's still the ambiguity of either him interceding, among his believers, for the good...or him interceding for 'the good among his believers'. Still though, either way, it isn't making much sense. yes, words have meaning. Let me pull some teeth, so your saying that benevolence and omnipotence are impossible qualities for god to have? or is it that if god has those qualities then its impossible for him to exist? If you read the OP, you'd see that the dictionary is what caused this thread.

You're not making any sense, and instead of trying to better explain yourself, your saying just figure it out.I don't know what a constant intercession for good means.

quote:

---

intercession ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-sshn)
n.
Entreaty (An earnest request or petition; a plea) in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another

---

So your saying that if god existed then he would constantly be interceding, or pleaing, for the good of his believers? How does that mean anything? Finally, I don't know why it takes has to take three posts. But YOU're deciding how long the lawn should be. Its impossible for you to know that. Maybe the overgrown thicket is how long Bill wants his lawn to be. What if Bill's backyard was a forest, and he has trimmed it down to an overgrown thicket? He could have the power and the will but you don't think he does because of your subjective opinion of how long you think his lawn should be.

welcome, have fun. Do you hold a positive affirmation that god does not exist? Do you recognize the difference between not recognizing the existence of god and recognizing the non-existance of god?See the OP (opening post) and if you do recognize the difference, and I see you call yourself an atheist, please answer the questions at the end of the OP.

What the hell are you guys talking about?

Which is a bad idea, as the link says:

quote:

---

More recently, however, some atheists have attempted to define atheism in more cautious terms, as nothing more than the absence of belief in God. This has complicated matters, introducing an ambiguity into the definition of atheism. One solution to this ambiguity is to distinguish between weak atheism and strong atheism.

---

and it goes on to show the problem of the solution:

quote:

---

Technically, then, every strong atheist will also be a weak atheist, though not every weak atheist will be a strong atheist.

---

and

quote:

---

And someone who confidently and dogmatically affirms that there is no God, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist.

​

...

​

A weak atheist is therefore someone who both lacks belief that God does exist and lacks belief that God does not exist. Weak atheists are thus what people often refer to as agnostics.

---

Which is why i wrote the OP and asked the following questions:Why do people who are without a belief in god but not with a belief in no god want to be called atheists, even thought that’s not what the word really means?Why change the meaning of the word? Why not come up with a new word? Or find the word that does mean without a belief in god?And I would like to add that being a 'strong' atheist and holding the position of a positive affirmation of the non-existance of god is just as illogical, to science, as believing in god.So then, they could all call themselves weak atheists, but then nobody will no what they believe because the term is so ambiguous and "inclusive and covers a wide range of positions".