Atheism

​

Atheism is a common conclusion after studying nature. What is atheism? It’s not someone who is uniformed and believes there is no God. Atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic God due to a lack of evidence for the claim of theism. The prefix “a” means not or without and theism refers to belief.  Is asymmetry a type of symmetry? Is apolitical a type of politics?

​

If you wanted to know what Christianity is would you not consult a Christian who has written on the subject? If you wanted to know what constitutes the Islamic religion, would you not consult a Muslim scholar? If you wanted to know the proper definition of atheism, would it be not be best to ask an atheist who has published on the subject, rather than straw man theist arguments against atheism? (see References below).

 

A lack of belief can’t be a belief any more than bald a hair color, abstinence a type of sex activity, or the off button on a TV a channel.

Disclaimer - basic reasons for the best definition of atheism being just a lack of evidence for a theistic claim comes from the Youtube presentation by Scott Savage. Please see the end of this writing.​​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

Who says atheism is just the lack of belief due to a lack of evidence?

 

"Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in gods.”

Smith, George H. "Atheism: The Case Against God." Prometheus Books, 1979.

 

"Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief. It is not a claim to knowledge, it is the admission that one does not know.”

Barker, Dan. "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists." Ulysses Press, 2008.

 

"Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.” Austin Cline, "Atheism and Agnosticism." Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

 

"Atheism is not a doctrine, nor a worldview. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.”

Blackford, Russell. "50 Great Myths About Atheism." Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

 

"Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in gods. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge.”

Eller, David. "Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker." American Atheist Press, 2007.

 

"Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge.”Baggini, Julian. "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction." Oxford University Press, 2003.

 

"Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.”

Bullivant, Stephen. "The Oxford Handbook of Atheism." Oxford University Press, 2013.

 

"Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in gods. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge.”

Martin, Michael. "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification." Temple University Press, 1990.

 

"Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.”

Zuckerman, Phil. "Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions." Penguin Press, 2014.

 

"Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in gods. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge.”

Nielsen, Kai. "Atheism and Philosophy." Prometheus Books, 2005.

 

"Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.”

Cliteur, Paul. "The Secular Outlook: In Defense of Moral and Political Secularism." 
 

​​​​

​

​

​

​

​​

​​
 

​​Atheism is simply a rejection of a theist claim due to insufficient evidence:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/691130870054194

​​
 

​​​​​​​​​Is Atheism a religion? Is it only for fools?
A religious scholar brings some good thoughts to the issue

 

​​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​​

​

What about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?
Some people will refer to this article that argues for the standard, traditional definition of atheism. But do the three reasons given by the authors really stand up to close examination? Discussed in the Appendix below. 

​​

Deism vs Theism - Limits of Atheism and Morality

​

I apply theism to a personal god and deism to an impersonal one that does not interact with its creation. Atheism is such a loaded term that it often carries negative connotations that are not accurate. Other terms may be helpful to use are non-theist and anti-theist. Of course, multiple descriptors can be applied to a single individual. Other atheist organizations agree with the proper definition of atheism. Much more importantly, atheism is not a religion (worships what? No creeds. No supernatural belief and different atheists can have different world views - note Stalin vs. Sagan for example). 

 

Secondly, atheism does not tell you about the person. It's just a tentative very secure conclusion due to a lack of evidence for a supported claim of God. It's not a philosophy of life explaining what a person believes in terms of morals, meaning and purpose in life for example. Most atheists adopt secular humanism as their world view  but certainly Stalin and Pol Pot did not.

​

Third, what about all those dictionaries that state atheism is "the belief there is no god"? What is the function of a dictionary? It is not to make policy or determine correct definition but to report usage - often common usage that is frequently wrong. 

 The writer of a dictionary is a historian, not a lawgiver. . . To regard the dictionary as an 'authority,' therefore, is to credit the dictionary writer with gifts of prophecy which neither he nor anyone else possesses. 

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-dictionary-1690450

​

Atheism is frequently and falsely linked to immoral values due to especially some despotic communist leaders. As demonstrated here, atheism is not a worldview and does not tell us anything about the values a person holds. In fact, there are atheist disaster relief agencies and organizations that help the poor and homeless.

See for example: https://seculardirectory.org/charities/

​

What about atheism and communism? They killed in the name of their ideology and not for atheism. Discussed here - #11 in this blog on multiple shorter topics - Evolutionary Musings


Brian Cox on the origin of humans, what make us human:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/3773768346087357

​

​​​​

Agnostic

​

A quick comment about the term agnostic. In common usage, most use this term to mean uncertainty or the inability to know something. It's often presented as a middle ground between theism and atheism. But technically that is not true. Gnosis refers to knowledge and as discussed above the prefix 'a' means not or without. Thus we are all agnostic about many areas of life. Thus, gonstic on one end and agnostic on the other does not belong on the same line as theism and atheism. They are very different claims. We are nearly all agnostic theists/deists and agnostic atheists in some way. It's unfortunate that especially many theists when proselytizing present the three incorrectly as theism - agnosticism - atheism. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​​​

​

References

​

https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-atheism/what-is-atheism/

​

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

 

YouTube on Atheism - 
https://web.archive.org/web/20201119085326/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwASABbCRVY
 

​

​Appendix (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) response

 

It’s not unusual to find someone attacking the definition of atheism as a lack of belief by referring to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and this article, updated 2022. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

The authors argue for the older traditional definition that atheism is the denial of deities. They first acknowledge that the definition of a lack of belief “… is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term”. Their purpose in writing the article is “which definition is the most useful for doing scholarly philosophical purposes”.  Near the end of their article they summarize three of their reasons why atheism should be tied to a denial of God.

First, it could have a direct and succinct answer to does God exist? No to atheism and yes to theism. It’s simple even if in the case of atheist scholars they would argue wrong. Making something simple just because that’s what philosophy needs or wants seems to be the opposite of a goal of philosophy - to move towards clarity and accuracy of an issue.

Second, they mention atheism as naturalism, but atheism is just best defined as the lack of belief - it makes no statements about whether the supernatural could exist or not, if metaphysical naturalism is the only reality. They then state that a lack of belief “could include the confusing issue of babies, cats and rocks counting as atheists by virtue lacking a belief in God.” I find that a straw man logical fallacy. A rock can have a belief? Atheists have looked at the proposed evidence for theism and found it missing or lacking. An atheist who has not evaluated claims would be ignorant of knowledge, an agnostic and not someone lacking in belief. Or at best an agnostic atheist. But the way atheists use the term, they have been exposed to the supposed evidence for the claims; it’s just not verified evidence. They have sound reasons for their lack of agreement to the claims of theists. Lack of verified evidence.

Third, they state that it makes the standard, older definition “symmetrical”. This is similar to their first reason. They think atheism is a “psychological state” whereas theism is a proposition. But especially atheist scholars have evaluated the proposed evidence and found it insufficient or lacking to support the belief that God exists. The proposition is rejected and is provisional awaiting verified evidence. This is the most rational position for someone to take regarding God claims and is not just a “psychological state”.

They write: “Therefore, for all three of these reasons, philosophers [not the average person or atheist scholars - philosophers] ought to construe atheism as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, as the proposition that there are no divine realities of any sort).”
[near the end of Section 1].  I find their three arguments not convincingly supported let alone containing a probable straw man logical fallacy.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

​