Atheists are 100% Certain There is No God - What Dictionary?

[progree]

I was horrified to see in a recent agnostics vs. atheists thread on this forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x287866

the notion that atheists are certain there is no God.

Question 1 - Does anybody have a dictionary definition of atheism that says something like that? Or that has any kind of declaration about degree of certainty? None of the below have any such....

{a} atheism.about.com's definitions of atheism
# http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm

{b} Wikipedia's article on atheism
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

{c} Standard Dictionaries definition of atheism
# http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard.htm

The primary definition of atheism is almost always something like "disbelief in God or gods". (Hardly an arrogant declaration of certainty).

Sometimes a SECONDARY definition of atheism includes "denial of the existence of God". Yeah, one can argue that this SECONDARY definition connotes a strong degree of certainty. On the other hand, consider that the root of this "denial thing" is that, per the Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957, in ancient Greece atheism meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods.

I suspect most of us would be atheists under that definition -- since (probably) most of us deny and don't recognize Zeus, Apollo, Pluto, and so on. And very few Democrats are in favor of establishing any state god(s). Only some CONNEDservatives feel the psychological need for a state God.

Question 2 - If you don't believe in God, do you get pissed about being "two-termed", i.e. having to choose between the agnostic and atheist labels?

After all, Christians aren't "two-termed" based on degree of certainty. Most Christians have their doubts at times, but we don't have two terms for them like "ChristNostics" for Christians who aren't 100% sure, and "Christ-eists" for those who are sure, or nonsense like that. Ditto other religions. Only non-believers have gotten two-termed.

[provis99]

1. if there is a god you don't even know about,

say the Great Yeerbul of Space-Time, then it is correct to say you are atheist about that god ie. you don't believe in It.
I might also wonder if Christians, since they believe only in Yahweh, are atheists about all other gods, and 100% certain that they don't exist.

This idea that atheism is 100% certain their is no god is nothing more than religious Freudian projectionism.

Arguing with religious people about atheism and it's meaning is about as frustrating as arguing evolution with creationists.

[progree]

10. Its not just religious people that have hung atheism with the 100% certainty thing

} Arguing with religious people about atheism and it's meaning is about as frustrating as arguing evolution with creationists. {

Unfortnately its not just religious people that have hung atheism with the 100% certainty baloney -- I see it in discussions between atheists and agnostics.... like in the thread I referenced...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x287866

By the way the last thing I want to do is start a fight between atheists and agnostics ... I'm just interested in seeing any definition that says atheists are certain. And to see if anyone is as frustrated as I am at the two-terming nonsense. And having to pick a label - both with a lot of negative baggage (not just from the perspective of the religious but amongst non-believers too -- e.g. agnostic can mean just about anything as far as belief or non-belief, or "wishy-washy fence-sitter", while an atheist is "arrogantly certain" about something nobody can be certain about)

Myself, I prefer to use the atheist label, but am tired of having to immediately qualify it by saying that doesn't mean I'm 100% certain.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. I am 100% certain that there is no god.

And if he walked up and shook my hand, I'd change my mind.

[Trajan]

24. Look ... It is a fallacious argument

Intended only to rile someone and get an argument in return ....

An atheist needn't be 100% certain about anything ... They simply need to assert that; based on the current state of evidence, they have concluded that theism should be rejected as a valid and warranted system of beliefs ....

If atheists are 100% certain about anything, it is that they have rejected theism ....

No argument actually exists .... Unless you really just want to argue ...

An atheist CAN decide that no gods can ever ever exist, but that would constitute an argumentum ad ignorantiam, another fallacy ....

To insist that atheists believe something like this is a strawman, and a form of ad hominem ... It's like reaching out and tweaking your nose ....

[progree]

28. Huh? I think I agree - atheists can believe with 100% certainty, or 80% certainty, or 60%, or....

"To insist that atheists believe something like this is a strawman, and a form of ad hominem ... It's like reaching out and tweaking your nose ...."

Believe what? I don't insist that atheists believe with 100% certainty -- au contraire MY WHOLE POINT is the EXACT OPPOSITE -- there is no definition of atheist or atheism that I have ever seen that ties atheism to any degree of certainty (except arguably and indirectly in a secondary definition).

No, I didn't post the topic to provoke a fight. We just run into this nonsense all the time in Atheist/Agnostic A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous). Why do we have to have these two terms anyway for people who simply don't believe in God?

I just went to the Freedom From Religion Foundation website (www.ffrf.org) and I was appalled that practically every sentence had the phrase "atheists and agnostics" in it. There's that darn two-terming again.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Most atheists I am aware of simply say they don't believe in god.

The ones saying they know there is not god seem to be far less common.

"Only non-believers have gotten two-termed."

This is because of bigotry against atheists, and because many people don't know what the word agnostic means. Many people seem to think agnosticism is in between atheism and theism, but that is not the case.

[cantbeserious]

3. Agnostic Here - I Have No Proof Or Dis-Proof That A "God" Exists

eom

[progree]

11. Atheists don't claim to have any proof either

which is the whole point of my original message -- what dictionary says that atheists claim to have proof?

[cantbeserious]

12. No Answer - Atheist's Seem More Convinced That A "God" Does Not Exist

Agnostics seem more centrist in that either possibility could be true.

[progree]

13. Seem, seem, seem. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

20. Listen and read what atheists say before you assume what they are convinced of.

A god, or two, or a thousand or even millions may exist, but from the lack of evidence, it sure appears as if they don't, no proof and no corroborating evidence means no belief. I don't know, hence I don't believe, that's what makes me an atheist.

[cantbeserious]

32. The Same Argument I Use As An Agnostic - I Don't Know Since I See No Proof

eom

[Humanist_Activist]

33. substitute know with belief and you are an atheist...

the two words are not interchangeable, nor do they even mean anything similar. One can inform the other, but beyond that, its a misuse of words.

[cantbeserious]

44. Fine - I Am Not Interested In Semantics - Peace

eom

[dmallind]

37. I'm an atheist. I'm not convinced

Only an idiot frankly is canvinced of a universal metaphysical negative. I can state that some specific gods are false because they are internally contradictory or falsified by known facts. But that's judt like knowing there are no married bachelors (in the modern typical usage of the word - yes I am aware of historical usage). Agnosticism only addresses knowledge. It is silent on the question of belief. Theism and atheism are binary terms that are mutually exclusive.

[provis99]

43. so what's your feeling on unicorns and leprauchauns?

[Warpy]

4. First, most dictionary entries are written by believers

and believers tend to define us in their own terms. The last place you should go to find out what an atheist is is the dictionary. Find an atheist and ask him or her. Of course, you'll get as many answers as there are atheists, but I'm sure you can cope.

Second, I grew up with an agnostic Irish Catholic mother. She said she didn't know and didn't particularly care, but she hadn't seen any evidence, either. She thought if there was one, it was totally uninvolved with this planet and all of us on it.

I really don't give a rip what people call themselves. I just mind it very much when they try to define me and do a bad job of it because they haven't asked questions and listened to the answers.

[ezgoingrl]

5. Agnostic isn't a softer version of atheist.

One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. The four positions regarding the belief/ non belief in god(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WxEwr7tYvM

[progree]

15. Which is my problem with using the agnostic label - it can mean just about anything (and nothing)

Agnostic can mean just about anything (and thus nothing). I've heard people call themselves agnostic because they don't believe in one of the established religions, but believe "that there is something up there that loves me and looks out after me" (i.e. theism).

And then at the other end, there are "tooth fairy agnostics" who believe the likelihood that god(s) exist is about the same as the tooth fairy existing. But who reject the atheist label because of its negative baggage, or because they think that "atheist" is a declaration of 100% certainty. But there is no definition that I've seen that atheist means "100% certain" (or certain to any degree).

And then there are some "agnostics" who superior-ily think agnostic means "open-minded atheist". Ewww.

[AmericaIsGreat]

6. I don't know how the two ever got split

At the heart of agnosticism and atheism is the disbelief in a god/gods. That's the core principle. Somewhere along the line it was decided that agnosticism believes there is a possibility of a god exists while atheism allegedly claims no such possibility exists which is just non-sense. The truth is neither can speak to the possibility. Atheists cannot say there is no possibility nor can agnostics say there is one. All that matters is that, at this very moment, both agnostics and atheists disbelieve in a god/gods. To me they are one and the same.

[skepticscott]

34. I think they got split by

the fact that some people who don't believe in any gods are afraid of labeling themselves as "atheists", either because of social stigma or because they think "atheist" carries with it some connotation of absolute certainty and immunity to evidence. But someone who calls themselves an agnostic, saying "I don't believe in any gods right now, but I'm open to the possibility that such a thing may exist, and that I may see evidence for it in the future" are technically atheists, and have essentially the same position as most people who willingly adopt that label, despite smug attempts by some such agnostics to style their intellectual position as somehow superior.

Agnostics who claim that not only do they not know anything about god, but that nothing CAN be known about god are just intellectually bankrupt (though none of them seem to realize it).

[habitual]

7. i'm having difficulty believing this. n/t

[struggle4progress]

8. There's gotta be something more interesting to discuss than definitions

[cleanhippie]

18. But isn't the defintion what the discussion is really all about - define God?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

9. There is no God? Well, there is almost certainally no diety in the sky

loooking over us. I don't care what religion you ascribe to, it's all bullshit. On the other hand, are their things going on in this immense universe that we don't understand? Oh hell yeah! Does this change me from an athiest to an agnostic? I really don't give a shit. Believing in some super powerful diety that somehow controls your life is just stupid. believing that there might be more going on than you understand is just common sense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. That's consistent with my definitional understanding. It's also why I'm an agnostic. n/t

[progree]

17. YOUR definitional understanding? *NO* dictionary say atheists are certain

At least I haven't seen a dictionary definition that says atheism means certainty.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. From Wiki

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.<1> In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.<2> Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.<3>

[progree]

41. Where's the certainty?

"In a broad sense ... in a narrower sense.... most inclusively... "

Whew. I too believe (or take "the position") there are no deities, but I am not 100% certain.

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. Agnosticism is really its own thing, aside from religion.

I see it as a philosophical stance: you hold that there are some statements who's truth value is unknowable or unknown, and then you don't speculate. The statement could be anything, like what the weather will be the first of next month. I for one believe it will be sunny, but an agnostic recognizes its unknowable with data at hand and forgets it, he doesn't have a stance on the issue. An atheist can understand the argument "if an all powerful all knowing being didn't want you to know he existed, would you know he existed?" (which is sufficient to shut down an agnostic on the God question) but still takes the stance that god does not exist.

[saras]

19. "Disbelief" IS a statement of certainty - negative certainty.

That's the difference between belief (including negative belief) and an opinion.

"denial of the existence..." merely refers to whether an atheist goes out prosletyzing or practices their disbelief quietly.

What I get pissed about is ignorant atheist bigots who think that every person who has had a spiritual experience or upbringing, or any kind of religion in their life is an Old-Testament fundamentalist.

Non-believers AREN'T "two-termed". Disbelievers (a form of believer) has a term that distinguishes them from people without belief (agnostics).

The simple test - ask yourself what data it would take to CHANGE your belief/opinion to the opposite one. Is it a reasonable data set - one that your opponents could produce if they were correct? If there isn't - there's nothing that can change your mind, or it would take living your whole life over to change your mind, or the proof would be impossible (example: demanding that Christians produce miracles on command to prove the existence of their God, since their God forbids that) - then you are a believer too. You simply believe in the absence of something others believe in the presence of.

[progree]

21. Oh it is not.

The atheist.about.com article in the original post discusses definitions of belief and disbelief as well.

"Non-believers AREN'T "two-termed". Disbelievers (a form of believer) has a term that distinguishes them from people without belief (agnostics)."

According to your definition of disbeliever, that makes sense, I guess.

I don't believe in God, but I am not 100% certain.

I know people who say they believe in God, but say they aren't 100% certain.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. "Extraording proof needed for extraordinary claims" this coming from a guy who called himself...

agnostic. I paraphrased, but the gist is the same, if you have no belief in a god or gods, then you are an atheist about those particular god or gods, or all of them. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, not belief or lack there of. A gnostic KNOWS something, an agnostic doesn't KNOW something.

I would be satisfied with intercessory prayer having a statistically significant positive correlation, but we you would probably consider that something impossible to prove.

[Trajan]

26. There is no certainty about it

There is only a conclusion based on the current state of the evidence ...

Feel free to convince us a god exists .....

Good luck with that ....

[Humanist_Activist]

31. Some people require certainty, and don't understand why others don't.

The only thing I'm certain of is that I'm uncertain about everything. But I actually relish in that, rather than be afraid I'm fascinated, if I knew everything, even about one simple subject or issue, then being able to learn about it is lost. Ignorance is only a weakness if used as an excuse not to learn at all. What you don't know can be just as illuminating as what you do know. But never confuse belief with knowledge.

[dmallind]

38. Bullshit - look up "disbelief" while you are at it. nt

[Trajan]

25. Laugh in their face ...

Note the Strawman and be done ....

[rrneck]

27. You can't tell people how they feel

and if you are struggling this much with definitions, you aren't too sure about your own feelings.

Decide what you believe or don't believe and let the definitions take care of themselves.

[progree]

29. I'm complaining about the misinformation, not how anyone feels or what to call myself

"if you are struggling this much with definitions, you aren't too sure about your own feelings. Decide what you believe or don't believe and let the definitions take care of themselves"

Thanks. But I'm not having any trouble with what to label myself - an atheist doesn't believe in god, and that fits me just fine. I'm not 100% certain, but then no definition of atheist that I've seen requires any degree of certainty. But some religious types, and unfortunately some people who call themselves agnostics, insist that atheists are "certain" or "sure" or somesuch. I say that is B.S. I'm a 90% certain atheist, or just an atheist, period.

We run into this nonsense all the time in Atheist/Agnostic A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous). Why do we have to have these two terms for people who simply don't believe in God?

I just went to the Freedom From Religion Foundation website (www.ffrf.org ) and I was appalled that practically every sentence had the phrase "atheists and agnostics" in it. There's that darn two-terming again.

We don't have Christnostics and Christ-eists, or Baptistnostics and Baptisteists.

[rrneck]

35. I'm an atheist right now.

Later today, I won't be. I suffer from chronic depression. Without a lot of boring details, it takes me (depending on circumstances) from three to twelve hours to feel human after I wake up in the morning. I create god every day and kill him every night when I go to sleep. You might say that I'm an atheist about 25% to 75% of the time. When my brain chemistry clears I don't suddenly believe in some bearded guy in the sky, but I finally generate the faith to face the day. Even if that happens at ten o'clock at night.

But I think I understand what you're saying. The term itself is a pejorative. Atheist means not what everybody else seems to be. Agnostic seems to be a weasel word to try to avoid the pejorative. They both label you as "the other". I don't see it that way. I think you're just as human as anybody else. You care enough to complain about how you are treated by the language and those who label you as something less than them by default. The fact that atheists claim the term for themselves is how language changes - and minds change as well. Religion has been the only game in town for a long time and it holds some pretty serious cultural market share.

I think everybody has faith. Now, I understand that telling an atheist that they have faith or worse, that atheism is a religion is about the best way in the world to annoy them. And most will tell you that and not be long about doing it. And like I said, we can't tell others how they feel. But I know what happens inside my head every day, and I'm human. And I'm pretty sure you're human too. Something got you out of bed this morning, and most of the people that have ever lived have called that something faith in god. The fact that you don't call it that doesn't make you any less human. That's the way I see it anyway.

I say fuck the labels. I don't have to explain any goddamn thing to any goddamn body. I'm as human as anybody else, and if I have faith in anything I've worked a lot harder for it than most people. I could write a book on how to find faith. I've done it over twenty thousand times and counting. I'll do it again in a few hours. All those labels; atheist, strong atheist, weak atheist, agnostic and all the careful parsing that happens in between are just people trying to find common ground among themselves. I think we should just call each other human and be done with it. Does that make me a humanist? I guess so but I don't care.

I think we should find god in others, whatever we think god may or may not be, and stop trying to persecute them because of our inability to see it. And we sure as hell don't need religion to sell people something they've already got.

This is a pre coffee post so I hope it makes sense.

[Humanist_Activist]

36. Isn't it a bit presumptious to claim everyone has faith?

I certainly don't, not in anything, indeed, my wanting to believe in the religion I was raised in and finding myself not able to has lead me to realize that trying to suspend my critical thinking skills is impossible and counterproductive.

[rrneck]

40. Well,

without going into a lot of parsing about the meaning of the word, I think we can have faith in a lot of things other than a deity. We can have faith in spouses, kids, pets, politicians, and that the Cubbies will win the pennant. I think that faith is little more than a prediction about how we will feel. The fact that religion has co opted the term and used it to burn people alive front loads it in a very counter productive way. That's the "cultural market share" I was referring to.

For my part, when I say everybody has faith I guess I'm just trying to find a bit of my own humanity in others, and theirs in me. But it's true, I can't tell others how they feel. If you say you don't have faith, I won't argue. Especially since I haven't had any coffee yet.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. I don't use faith in that way, trust and hope are better words to convey such sentiments. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

30. Of course not, but you can tell them when they are wrong about something...

too many people believe too many wrong things about atheists and atheism that we need to repeat ourselves over and over because of the misinformation that exists out there.