True Definition of Atheism

Several years ago EvilBible.com attempted to educate the ignorant atheist masses on what their position really means. An atheist is someone who was faced with the proposition of God, and either doubts or denies his existence. However, since atheists can't take good advice, the article has largely been ignored and people are still using the incorrect definition, claiming that babies and even Buddhists are atheists, such as these morons here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

The article said the following:

Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".

A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".

A couple of etymologies from respected dictionaries are shown below:

From Merriam-Webster Online:

Etymology of "atheism": Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.:

Etymology of "atheism": French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–¹ + theos, god

Stupid Argument #2: Most Dictionaries Define "Atheism" as a "Lack of Belief".

I see this lie quite often on the internet. The truth of the matter is that no reputable dictionary has a "lack of belief" definition. See page 3 for more on this subject.

Stupid Argument #3: Most Dictionary Definitions of "Atheism" are Wrong Because They are Written by Biased Christians.

This absurd claim is totally unsupported by any facts, much like the gigantic government conspiracy to cover-up UFO landings.

Stupid Argument #4: Only Atheists get to Define What the Word "Atheist" Means.

This argument is absurd for two reasons. First of all, words are defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition. For example the word "handicapped" is defined by common usage not just by handicapped people.

Secondly, a "lack of belief" definition for the word "atheist" would include so many agnostics, babies, infants, and the undecided that the self-identified atheists would be a very small minority. Babies and infants would make up a majority of the "lack of belief" atheists and I haven't heard of any of them who could express a coherent definition

Stupid Argument #5: Most Atheists Want a "Lack of Belief" Definition.

This argument is usually presented as fact without any actual surveys to back it up. The first problem with this is the "babies and infants" problem described above. The second problem is that most scientific surveys of religious beliefs show that only a minority of the non-religious people self-identify as atheists. For example the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) shows that 13.2% of the US population self-identified as "no religion" while 0.4% self-identified as atheists and 0.5% self-identified as agnostics. The 2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year also shows similar numbers.

Stupid Argument #6: The Phrase "Tom does not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "Tom believes that God does not exist."

This idiotic argument is sometimes presented by brain dead morons who don't understand basic English grammar. I really don't expect most people to know that "raising" is the technical name for the location of the negative in the first sentence, or that raising simply shifts the negative from the subordinate clause where it logically belongs to the main clause, especially when the main clause’s verb is suppose, think, believe, seem, or the like. (Here are two links from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English that explain it: Link 1, Link 2)

However, I find it impossible to believe that anyone with half a brain would use this argument. The English language is literally filled with many common examples of raising. I'll post a few for clarity:

A) "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.

B) "I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.

C) "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.

D) "I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.

Stupid Argument #7: A "Lack of Belief" Definition is Useful in Debates.

Some people think that a "lack of belief" definition of atheist shifts the burden of proof to the theist and requires them to prove the existence of their god. The truth of the matter is that the theist's claim of a supernatural god with magical powers is an extraordinary claim and requires substantial evidence if it is to be logically believed. The burden of proof is on the theist regardless of the definition of the word "atheist".

As an analogy, if someone claimed that flying pigs existed, then they would have the burden of proof to prove this regardless of whether I told them I "lacked belief" in the existence of flying pigs or if I told them that I believed that flying pigs did not exist.

Stupid Argument #8: All Atheists Lack a Belief in Gods so Anyone who Lacks a Belief in Gods is an Atheist.

This argument is so damn stupid that it is rarely expressed explicitly. Usually it is only vaguely implied by statements such as "the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods".

The logical mistake here should be self-evident to any adult with half a brain, so I won't explain it. But if you are in a child in elementary school, try to figure it out with this analogy: All dogs have fur so anything with fur is a dog.

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm

Now, you'd think that the preceding points would be enough to convince anyone with half a brain, but there are several more stupid arguments I've ran across, and I feel the need to point them out.

Stupid Argument #9: "Denial" and "Disbelief" in Definitions of Atheism Includes All the Weak and Strong Forms of Atheism

In the face of a proposition, denial and disbelief are not the only two options. What if you don't care about the proposition? What if you aren't convinced that the proposition is both true or not true? What if you haven't even heard the proposition? Need I go on? The idiocy of this argument speaks for itself really. Lack of Belief =/= Disbelief.

Stupid Argument #10: If I have Disbelief, I Lack the Ability to Believe, therefore Atheism is Lack of Belief.

This is obviously wrong because disbelief and lack of belief are not the same thing. When someone is faced with disbelief, he cannot believe that something is true. When someone has a lack of belief, there are many other positions he could take, as described in the last argument i.e. he could not be convinced that the proposition is either true or not true.

Stupid Argument #11: I'm an Agnostic Atheist.

Here we have another contradictory nonsensical word that nobody except atheists use and that you won't find in any real dictionaries or textbooks but only on atheist websites and the bullshit peer-edited sites like Wikipedia. Some morons claim that just because agnosticism deals with knowledge, and atheism deals with belief in God, there is no way the two could possibly be contradictory! This argument comes from ignorance of what agnosticism really is. Agnosticism is basically a refusal to make claims where no evidence can be had. So proponents of this argument here are essentially saying, "I make no claims about the existence of God, but I think he doesn't exist." For all of you slow folks, "I think God doesn't exist" is, in fact, a claim about God. This is pure idiocy. And this doubles for theism too. But let's take a look at what reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias state:

Encyclopedia Britannica - Agnosticism

Doctrine that one cannot know the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of experience.

It is popularly equated with religious skepticism, and especially with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought. T.H. Huxley popularized philosophical agnosticism after coining the term agnostic (as opposed to gnostic) in 1869, to designate one who repudiated traditional Judeo-Christian theism but was not a doctrinaire atheist (see atheism). Agnosticism may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional Christian tenets*.

*Note that the rejection of Christian tenets stems from a true lack of a belief as opposed to a "denial" or "disbelief," like atheism.

Merriam Webster:
Agnostic -
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something.

It is intellectually bankrupt to both claim that there can be no knowledge about God and at the same time make any kind of claims about him anyway.

Stupid Argument #12: You're Arguing Semantics

This is the last resort of the braindead loser who can't think of anything better to say. This stupid argument also ignores the importance of semantics, which is the basis for all of language. You might as well just say "you're arguing with logic" if you're going to use this retarded argument.

And for those of you, such as atheists, who can't accept anything without being spoonfed by an intellectual authority, EvilBible.com posted several links to reputable articles that discuss the correct definition:

Atheism and Natheism. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the Autumn 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine. This link has about one page of the article for free. The entire article is $5.00.

Atheism and Natheism: part II An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the Winter 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine. This link has about one page of the article for free. The entire article is $5.00.

Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998), an Essay by Theodore M. Drange.

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

Stupid Articles

Let's take a look at the content of some of these articles which propose a lack of belief definition for atheism.

Definition Of Atheism: Not A Belief

This guy starts off his article with this:

Contrary to what many people think and many dictionaries suggest, atheism is not a belief. It is simply the lack of belief in "God " or gods. Before starting this article, I checked several dictionaries. In the first one, the definition of atheism given was, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God." What nonsense!

What an idiot! This guy calls nonsense on standard dictionary definitions and popular usage, completely ignoring the fact that nobody gives a crap about his opinion unless he can back it up with facts. Again, words are defined by common usage, not by people who fit that definition. This is another example of someone who hopped onto the atheist bandwagon because he can't think for himself and discovered that atheism doesn't actually fit his beliefs. Tough shit. He should have picked a belief he actually adheres to. But then again, most atheists haven't considered the other options either, simply picking what is popular, so I shouldn't be surprised. But maybe the author will provide some good reasoning in his article and redeem himself?

In this case, we look at what atheism actually is. It is clear that atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of belief. The believer is the one who claims a god exists. Atheism simply points to the reality that some people's belief systems don't include a belief in a god.

Well, I spoke too soon. The author is clearly not intelligent enough to spot the difference between lack of belief and disbelief. Apparently we're supposed to ignore common usage and all dictionary definitions because this clown said so.

Rational Responders - Am I agnostic or atheist?

If you are one such person then it might interest you to know that your doubt actually makes you an atheist, not an agnostic. Why is this so? Because the word 'theism' simply implies a belief in a god. Therefore, if you find yourself identifying yourself primarily as a doubter of the existence of a 'god', then you are an a-theist... someone who does not hold to a belief in a 'god', someone who does not accept the claims of theists.

It's funny how stupid people have the answer to everything. Are people starving in Africa? Then they should move to France! Don't know whether you're an agnostic or atheist? You must be both! An atheist is not just a non-theist; that's neither what the etymology or definition of the word imply. People need to quit making shit up.

A common response to hearing that one is an 'atheist' is to say: "But I don't disbelieve, I just don't believe!" But take a look at those words carefully: if you literally "don't disbelieve" - then, by double negation, you'd believe! Not disbelieving is believing.

That's not how negation works. See stupid argument #6.

Q: But my dictionary says that 'atheism' is defined as ....

A: Will it surprise you to find out that dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people might use? I hope not! Will it surprise you to find out that not all of these definitions are appropriate for every context? I hope not! Would it surprise you to find out that some theological and philosophical terms have colloquial usages? And that dictionaries list these definitions, even definitions based on common error, along with the proper theological definitions, and even, in some cases, in lieu of the proper definition?[...]But one thing that dictionaries usually do not do is provide a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed.

Will it surprise you that I trust dictionaries more than some random condescending atheist douchebags? Personally I think dictionaries are too lax, and that atheism should just be restricted to people who think that God does not exist as there are already way too many people who "accidentally" fall into the definition of atheism yet don't consider themselves atheist. The ratio of people who identify themselves as atheists vs the amount of non-religious people total is pathetically small. Anyone who seriously looks at the "rigorous philosophical justification" of atheism will see that it's not a lack of belief anyway - so what's the point in even writing this? What a stupid article.

EVERYONE ON EARTH WAS BORN AN ATHEIST.

ALL RRS CORE MEMBERS ARE BOTH AGNOSTIC AND ATHEIST.

ALL RRS CORE MEMBERS ONCE BELIEVED THEY WERE MERELY AGNOSTIC, NOT ATHEIST. IT WAS BECAUSE OF OUR OPEN MIND WE WERE WILLING TO ADMIT OUR MISTAKE (all within 5 minutes of learning it). What is your mind like? Are you open to the evidence that you might have been lied to about what the terms mean? Do you realize that theists lie to spread their belief? If so, can you admit they lied about a topic they were highly ignorant of(atheism)?

MY MIND HAS BEEN OPENED AND A VEIL HAS BEEN LIFTED FROM MY EYES! :0 Not really. "Am I agnostic or atheist"? These dumbasses can't even capitalize a title properly, let alone tackle issues such as the definition of atheism.

Who Is Really An Atheist?

Now let's take a look at some people who atheists claim are atheists, but are really not:

1) Einstein. Many idiots claim that Einstein is an atheist, but let's look at some of his quotes:

You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth.

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

I am not an Atheist, I don't think I can call myself a Pantheist.

Hmmmm. Einstein's claim that "I am not an atheist" seems to contradict these claims that he is an atheist, does it not? Perhaps atheists should stop telling Einstein what to think? There's a reason Einstein refused to associate himself with arrogant douchebags crusading against religion, but I digress.

2) Carl Sagan. It should be painfully obvious to anyone who has read his book "The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God" that he takes an agnostic view towards religion. Carl does not have the need to doubt the existence of God or anything else; he simply pays no attention to it unless evidence can be had for it.

3) Pretty much every other scientist on the planet. Scientists simply deal with observable reality - there is no need to believe in something for which there is no evidence, just like there is no need to deny its existence, as that is stupid and unproductive. Also, atheists have to understand that not everybody who lacks a belief in God shares their goal of crusading against religion and showing the "troglodytic bible-thumpers" the error of their ways. There are some of the attitude that other peoples' beliefs should be respected.

Conclusion

If you've read up to this point in the article, you'd be an idiot to still think that atheism means lack of belief. Yet there are dozens of morons, bigots, and, at the risk of being redundant, dogmatic atheists, who still use this blatantly false definition.Why do atheists claim that completely unrelated people share their worldview? It might be because the closet-atheists are tired of hiding their beliefs in real life, and feel better knowing that more people agree with them. Or they might be trying to switch burden of proof to everyone but themselves in order to make up for their all-around lack of debate skills.

Let's not kid ourselves here; have any self-proclaimed atheists ever came off as mere religious skeptics? No, they are always arguing against God and are seemingly all but certain he doesn't exist. Are we supposed to put years of common and correct usage on hold just because atheists want to expand their position to include more people? Pathetic. I take comfort in knowing that nobody will ever adopt this nonsensical made-up definition of atheism that nobody but dogmatic atheists use, since the definition is too vague to be used commonly.