Have the New-Atheists redefined the term ''atheism''?
A - without
Theos - God
Therefore, Atheos - Without God.
The Stanford University Encylopedia - a respected, peer-reviewed philosophical encylopedia defines atheism as:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
H
The current trend of contemporary atheism is to present itself as a ''non-asserting'' viewpoint that lacks any sort of burden of proof. Atheism is merely the absence of belief due to lacking evidence, theists have to prove the existence of God as they are the ones making the claim.
This representation of the atheistic position has been met with fierce opposition from various philosophers who call the current atheistic position evasive and trivial as it's completely compatible with agnosticism. Some have even accused contemporary atheists of intellectual cowardice and of intellectual gymnastics with the purpose of circumventing their burden of proof.
If merely the absence of belief is what defines atheism, then my cat is an atheist, but surely this is absurd as my cat is not even capable of understanding such terms and views. For there to be an atheist, there must, as a necessity, be a theist.
Do New-Atheists not believe in the existence of god or they withhold assertions regarding god like the agnostics do? The contemporary trend is the latter.
Bill Valicella of the webzone Maverick Philosopher says, and I quote:
Atheism is something people discuss, debate, argue for, argue against, draw conclusions from, believe, disbelieve, entertain, and so on. Atheism, in other words, is a PROPOSITION: it is something that can be either true or false, that can be the object of such propositional attitudes as belief and disbelief, and can stand in such logical relations to other propositions as entailment, consistency, and inconsistency. But one cannot discuss, debate, argue for, . . . believe, etc. a lack of something. Atheism redefined as the lack of theistic belief is a PROPERTY of certain persons. Now a proposition is not a property. Atheism is a proposition and for this reason cannot be redefined as a property.
So, I would like to see what people think. Have atheists redefined ''atheism'' or is this just theist propaganda to put atheists on a more shakier foundation?
Yes
Side Score: 23
|
 |
No
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
To an extent there's been a shift. As atheism becomes more and more popular, especially on the internet (e.g. the you-tube atheist crowd and the 'debate faith' chatroom in stickam... is that even still around?) I'm seeing atheism become progressively more militant. With some people, the title "anti-theist" is more applicable than "atheist". What I think is going on is there are people within one standard deviation of the norm in terms of IQ who have come to the realization that Christianity is largely bunk and therefore have turned to atheism. That's all fine and well, but these people start to base their entire self-worth on this heterodox view of organized religion. Now, the atheist position is actual very reasonable; "there's no hard evidence for God, therefore there's no reason to believe in God, so I don't". The issue here is there's not much to argue about, which is no good because being a fringe element is only fun when you can use it to make yourself feel superior to those whom adhere to the status quo, amiright? Which means you either have to dive into more complex issues and come to fringe positions on them (which usually doesn't happen amongst those who are within one standard deviation) or you can get progressively more and more pushy with the one issue you do hold a counter-culture perspective on. This results in many atheists making instigative statements to incite debate, statements such as "I have no burden of proof, it is all on you!" -- the standard justification for this is "You can't prove a negative!". This is incorrect for reasons I won't go into here, but to cut to the chase, atheists do have the burden of proof. The de-facto position is neutral, not negative, so the only people who don't have the burden of proof are agnostics. If you are debating the theist position, you have to provide evidence for God's existence, if you are debating for the atheist position, you have to provide evidence that God can't exist (much harder to do). Debunking arguments made for God isn't adequate because they only show flaws in the theist's reasoning, not the validity of your's in terms of atheism. Atheism is a logical position to hold personally, but on the debating field you can't argue for anything past agnosticism as you cannot provide any evidence that there is no God. So, to that extent there has been a change in the definition of atheism in that it has shifted from a personal opinion to an arguable position, which it is not. In other words, it's shifted from the lack in a belief in God, to the belief that there is no God. Side: Yes
1
point
Have an upvote sir/madam. I definitely agree that, especially within the internet generation, atheism is becoming redefined as something far more aggressive than the word structure would tell. In fact at one point, not so long ago, I identified myself as an anti-theist. Though I had my own personal reasons, I cooled off a bit, because I realised how pointless it was. But I think there's a false distinction here. Between agnosticism and atheism. Because the vast majority of the atheist populace is agnostic. And, conversely, the majority of the agnostic populace is probably atheist. The concept of God is unprovable, thus, when asked, most atheists will say they don't know if God exists. That's agnosticism. And when agnostics are asked, they'll say they don't know, and can't make a decision. Thus, they too are atheists, albeit not actively, or maybe even consciously. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Although, Libertarian1 is a gnostic atheist, I can't remember why though. Side: Yes
If you identify yourself as a 'agnostic atheist', in that you hold the position of atheism and debate the position of agnosticism, then what I said doesn't apply to you. What I said only applies if you are a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist who holds agnosticism and debates atheism rather than the other way around. Tbh, I meant to include this in my original comment, but I felt it was too long already. =p Side: Yes
1
point
Although, Libertarian1 is a gnostic atheist, I can't remember why though. Gnostic in regards to the major monotheistic religions and such, agnostic when it comes to certain deistic or pantheistic views. Certain theological claims defy axiomatic principles of reality(for example the claim of infinity). As such I regard them as false until it is demonstrated that such principles can be shown to be broken. Side: Yes
1
point
I'm seeing atheism become progressively more militant. In a country as rabidly religious as my own, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. We have some of the most closed-minded, zealous Christians in the world living right here in America, and I think a few aggressive atheists help balance out the equation. In any case, because we represent such a small minority, one often painted as "anti-American," in practice aggressive atheism is often defensive atheism. If you are debating the theist position, you have to provide evidence for God's existence, if you are debating for the atheist position, you have to provide evidence that God can't exist (much harder to do). I agree, but I only agree because I know that theism and, for that matter, the concept of god himself, operate outside the bounds of reason. Atheism is as you said a very logical position to hold, so naturally it tries to explain and justify and refute everything rationally, but when the topic of debate is "magic," yes, that is a very difficult thing for an atheist to refute, especially when all that is required from the opposition is faith. So it is not possible to prove that something incomprehensible and unknowable exists or not, but I think atheists often do a good line in pointing out that there is no rational reason to believe in god other than a theists willingness to. Other atheists argue inside the bounds of religion's fantasy land, arguing, for example, that if god exists he is an flawed, asshole tyrant, and should be rejected and overthrown. Theism is an easy position to hold, because all it requires is a desire to believe in something. Theism is hard to refute because that would require you to know things about the unknowable. But this doesn't mean atheism doesn't poke holes in religious ideologies, refute the dogma, and stump the theologian. In other words, even though some atheist positions are impossible and pointless, I still think atheism does a lot of good for humanity. Side: Yes
|
3
points
I don't know, all the semantic gymnastics confuses me as well. Considering the following statements: 1.) I believe a god exists. 2.) I do not believe a god exists. 3.) I believe no god exists. I'm guessing most people associate #1 with theism, #2 with agnosticism, and #3 with atheism? Side: No
Atheism has been chronically "redefined." In general, though, if you do not believe in God, you are an Atheist. You're acting like we're all automatically theists until we decide to just say "hey, God doesn't exist." that's not how it works. When I was born I was not a theist. I was taught to believe in God for many years until I started thinking for myself and realized that all this stuff that people were telling me about God had absolutely no evidence to back it up. I didn't even know what to call it when I was around 13 or 14. I knew about Atheism, but I was taught to think that they were fools who were going to Hell. When I started coming to terms with how the church and priests were just saying things and not backing it up at all, I realized that I was having blasphemy invade my "beliefs." If Atheism is an active belief that God doesn't exist at all, what do you call "God? No, I don't believe in him." Is it that Theists prefer Agnostics because it gives them hope that Atheism would disappear? If so, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens aren't Atheists since they acknowledge that there is no absolute way to say that God doesn't exist. It means that almost every Atheist is actually an Agnostic. The few Atheists would probably be Epicurus, but that's because he used the problem of evil as a means to decide that God doesn't exist because God HAS to meet a certain criteria. Atheism, going back to its original term, is without God. It was used by Greeks to describe people who didn't worship their own God. If you really want to be anal about redefinition, you would be an Atheist towards anyone who is not of your religion and vice-versa. making everyone an atheist. But that wouldn't make you happy, would it? so just accept that those of us who don't believe in God are Atheists. Stop whining whenever we accept that Quantum Mechanics is relevant in today's physics. Side: No
"You're acting like we're all automatically theists until we decide to just say "hey, God doesn't exist." that's not how it works. When I was born I was not a theist. ... so just accept that those of us who don't believe in God are Atheists." What a load of projection. First you attack a straw man about people saying you're theists by default, and then you insist everyone's atheist by default. No. The words had set definitions. Some people didn't LIKE the set definitions because they wanted more ammo, stronger rhetoric, when it comes to attacking theism. That doesn't justify redefinition. Redefinition like this is Orwellian. Not as bad as "1984" since it's not imposed by government (as of now, that I know of), but it's still intellectually dishonest. "If so, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens aren't Atheists since they acknowledge that there is no absolute way to say that God doesn't exist." This is also a straw man, and involves more projection (as I'll note later). Theism doesn't require absolute knowledge any more than atheism does, nor do theists claim as much. Plenty of atheists from before any redefinition called themselves by that label without claiming to be infallible in their belief. (Incoming circular argument about atheism not being a belief, ignoring the whole redefinition thing and thus atheism being a belief there is no higher power.) How many people were really "true" atheists is irrelevant. It has a meaning. That meaning was used just fine by philosophers on both sides for ages. You imply theists are trying to inflate their numbers (here's where that projection I mentioned comes in again), and yet what really happened in the late 20th century? Suddenly, the New Atheists decide they want to inflate their numbers by claiming agnostics are "really" atheists. Enough said. Side: Yes
2
points
This representation of the atheistic position has been met with fierce opposition from various philosophers who call the current atheistic position evasive and trivial... I don't understand why people think that anyone has to prove anything. What's wrong with simply admitting that you don't know? It's the truth, after all. Anything else is a lie. Side: No
1
point
Well, technically ''No God'' is an assertion. ''Lack of belief in God'' is not an assertion, it's withholding assertions. How do you go from equating an assertion to lack of assertion? And what of rocks and trees and cadavers? They have no mind, thus they lack beliefs. If they lack beliefs, then they lack belief in god. Therefore, rocks and trees and cadavers are atheists according to your definition of the term. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Atheism (and Christianity) only refers to the opinion of the individual, it does not refer to the conviction of belief they have. That is, agnostic atheists & gnostic atheists (not that there are many of the latter) are both atheists, despite attempts to label them 'weak' & 'strong' atheists. Therefore, the position of non-assertion of facts is the position of the agnostic atheist. This is perfectly legitimate, as agnostics do not claim to have proof of their beliefs. Where the error is made here, is simply out of laziness on both parties. 'New atheists', as they are often referred to, are agnostic atheists, yet they typically just call themselves atheists. The failure to clarify between gnostic & agnostic leads to this confusion. To give the example of the cat (or anyone in an original position of ignorance), they would have no belief in a God, but neither would they claim the burden of proof for this. As you stated, 'atheist' mean without theism, or without God. If someone has no belief in a God, then they are without God: therefore, they are an atheist. The difference that you are trying to find is between a passive lack of belief in a God, and an active disbelief in one. As atheism has roots in the word 'theism', it seems more likely to me that it is related to 'theism'. As theism is the belief in a God, atheism should be no belief in a God. The belief in no God, although similar, is of a different subject. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Not refuting that last bit because I agree with it, generally, but personally I kept going to church for a couple years after I became an atheist (all of this while I was a teen). I debated the issues with a couple of my pastors, listened to sermons with a new perspective, even church hopped around to hear from people outside my church (and former religion). I guess I was looking for something to refute my new found ideology. A couple years down the road, still unconvinced, I stopped going and haven't been back since. I actually enjoyed church more as an atheist. When you're a theist church is long and boring and serious. When you're an atheist it's like free standup comedy. Side: No
1
point
At the end of your discussion you ask two opposing questions, "Is A true or is B true?" But we can only answer "Yes" or "No". This makes the response tricky. Going with the original question then, "Have the New-Atheists redefined the term 'atheism'?" Then the answer is no. They've clarified the term. Theism is about whether you have a belief in a god, goddess, or gods, so being without that belief, an atheist in the strictest interpretation of its Latin roots, does not necessarily mean a belief that there are no gods. Atheism is merely the absence of a belief in gods, being without a belief in gods. A baby, for example, has no concept of gods, therefore is implicitly without a belief in gods. The baby is therefore an atheist. But since the baby has no concept of gods, s/he cannot believe that no gods exist. If you insist that atheism is the rejection of the belief in gods, then we have no label to describe this state, since even agnosticism requires first a knowledge of the concept of gods. The clearer definition, however, works just fine to include people with no knowledge of gods, and therefore no belief in gods. The problem is that the old definitions were rarely used since there were few real atheists until recently. Therefore the definition didn't need to be particularly clear. It was mainly used as a way to slander people originally anyways. Now that there are many real atheists, the term needs to be clearer. And I don't think that "clarification" is the same as "redefinition" here, since the core of the term's definition remains the same. Side: No
You can't "clarify" that a word means something that it didn't mean before. That's called redefining. Look at philosophical text from before the "clarifying"/redefining times of the late 20th century: Atheist, agnostic, and theist alike use the "traditional" definition that most non-militant-atheists still use today: Atheists believe there is no higher power, theists believe in a higher power, agnostics don't know (and some of the latter take the hard agnostic position, saying you CAN'T know, while others take a softer position). "It was mainly used as a way to slander people originally anyways." There were plenty of atheists who argued their cases and were respected for their efforts (regardless of how popular they were). And if a word is mainly used as an insult, so what? Should a defender of cannibalism redefine that term so as to make it more broad and vague, including people who were never cannibals, since people use that word against him? Whether there were a lot of atheists compared to agnostics is irrelevant when determining what the word means or whether it's okay to unilaterally expand the meaning to take in another group so as to make the term more palatable. This redefining of words is Orwellian. Side: Yes
|
