semanticsThis is an extension of a previous question that was suggested I move into a different post:
What are the abstract properties of a “god” such that atheists can reject it?
Edit: By this I mean give the most general definition that you can without being so general that it exceeds the scope of atheism. Necessary and sufficient conditions, while neither jointly necessary nor sufficient, would definitely help clarify things along these lines.
NOTE: Rejection of all supernatural entities is merely metaphysical naturalism, so one would need more strict criteria to only be atheist.
This is related to 2 previous posts: What is god in atheism? and Do atheists need to define god(s) in order to reject them?
But is different in one fundamental way:
It asks for a definition without being allowed to use the word “god” or any of its equally ambiguous synonyms (deity, divine being, etc.)
This will give us the ability to establish a definition of atheism that can be explained without evoking anyone’s particular definition of what a god is, which is undoubtedly various both among atheists and theists.
Atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in any god or gods, and it doesn’t matter what kind of god or gods you are talking about or trying to describe. Atheism can’t be defined without a god.
A-Theos = Without God
If you want to insist about not using the word “god” itself as a principle, you can use the common definition of “god” as any supernatural being that has a will, then you can say that Atheism is “a lack of belief in any supernatural being that has a will”. But again, whatever your definition is, atheism is the lack of belief in that definition.
In short, you cannot define atheism without the word “god”. If you want to define “god”, fine, but that’s altogether a totally different issue.
You can’t.
Atheism is the disbelief in God/gods.
Atheism doesn’t mean being skeptical, by the base definition. It is possible to be religiously atheistic. It would be perfectly acceptable, for example, to disbelieve in a God, but still believe in magic, or psychics, or ghosts. In fact, I know people that fit this bill.
Atheism != lack of religion.
Any omniscient (or not), omnipresent (or not), omnipotent (or not) disembodied consciousness that takes an active role (or not) in the lives of the sentient organisms on this planet, and with which said organisms can have a personal and meaningful relationship (or not).
Atheism rejects that.
Atheism - A state free of religious delusions.
An atheist can be described as a person that does not believe in will behind creation.
EDIT: I think that creation implies some kind of creator, therefore it can’t be considered a proper definition. How about:
An atheist can be described as a person that does not believe in will behind the existence of the cosmos.
Not quite as literal as I’d like, but better than the first, I think.
An atheist rejects propositions for which he cannot find evidence. As such he demands that statements about reality follow directly and logically stepwise from the initial concept that he himself and reality coexist.
Maybe this is too strong as perhaps it is not true or necessary that all atheists are such strict logicians. But I feel it captures the spirit (pun intended) of atheism and is an applicable definition that leads to a correct and “godless” description of core atheistic beliefs.
An atheist believes that the universe began though some natural process, and that the lives of humans are not observed, dictated, or influenced by any intelligent non-human entity(s). Further beliefs may include moral relativism, metaphysical naturalism, and a non-predestined world-view. While many atheists follow rationalist and scientific philosophies, that is not true for all.
An atheist believes, that no thinking planful force created the universe and/or is controlling it.
atheism is the state of mind that allows people to take charge of their own existence.
(not sure if I worded it correctly, but that’s a definition that doesn’t involve god-stuff)
It is essentially a matter of delineating a non- or anti-religious thought from a traditional religious understanding of existence.
Specifically atheists are concerned with non-‘magical’ ontologies, preferring predictive hypotheses rather then ‘sublime’ explanations. Yet it is usually also a ‘fully’ metaphysical position which valorizes the free exercise of reason and critique, advocating a search for truth rather than obedience and faith.
So a pure or aculutural formulation of atheism might frame itself as establishing the status of science and rigorously grounding the noble distance between scientific functions, artistic compositions, philosophical concepts – and religious or moral commandments.
I think the only way to do it is to either use a synonym for god (“deity”, etc), or incorporate a definition of god in your definition of atheism. An example of the latter: Atheist: someone who disbelieves in a supernatural being that is conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. (using a definition of God found at http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god )
Saying atheism is the rejection of religion is pretty close to the mark, but some might say you can have religion without belief in a deity, or that you can have belief in a deity without religion per se. Regardless, for it to be a reasonably accurate definition of atheism, it is still has to be directly or indirectly dependent on the concept of “god”. Obviously, though, you can avoid using the word “god” itself.
As a slight aside: it is my opinion that “atheism” is an extremely poorly defined concept, and that most atheists here and elsewhere don’t seem to want to recognize this. For one thing there are so many ideas of God (I know some “believers” that consider god to be nothing more that a useful psychological tool and/or a metaphor! It’s kind of hard to “disbelieve” in the existence of such an abstract concept…). Furthermore, with regard to any hypothesis, a person’s stance can fall anywhere on a spectrum from 0% to 100% convinced of its truth. Anyone claiming exactly 0% or exactly 100% – for anything – is being intellectually irresponsible, in my opinion. So how close to zero does it have to be to be called “atheist”?
Someone who is a rational thinker.
I’ll explain Atheism as No boundaries.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.