Then what shall we call people like myself who don’t believe in gods but do not take the additional step of claiming that gods do not exist?
The problem with Oppy’s and Draper’s definition is that it fails to describe many atheists.
The problem I see with this approach is that you are asking questions about epistemology. Atheism deals with belief, not epistemology.
The burden of proof lies with those who claim that gods exist, not with those who are skeptical of those claims. Bertrand Russell did a good job of explaining this:
I’m not even sure what it would mean that “no gods exist”. Do people imagine that they’ve nailed down every possibility of what a “god” might be like? Do I have to disprove all the possibilities of things people may not have even imagined yet?
I cannot think of anything logically wrong with that definition. But to me it implies that type of belief we are discussing for God is not qualitatively different than one’s attitude towards chocolate ice cream – it is just the way one is and not something that needs to be justified – which does not seem apt to me. But I can see how others would disagree with me on that discomfort.
I think many here are missing something very important about “coming out” as an atheist. It takes a lot of courage to take that position, even in this country and this time period. Any person today has family and societal pressures to conform. And despite the progress that has been made it is still a capital crime in 40 countries to come out as an atheist.
“Non-theist” unambiguously describes someone who is not a theist, so that is a term that works well, I think. Or you could continue calling yourself an atheist, if we’re okay with recognizing that there is more than one definition in use, and that things that we can say about “atheism” on one definition might not be true about “atheism” on another definition.
(I admit that I am not perfect at always being clear which definition I, or those I am conversing with, am/are using, but I’m working on it.)
Counter-question: what shall we call the belief or proposition that gods do not exist?
The point with their definition is to talk about the belief or proposition that gods do not exist, not to try to include everyone who self-describes as an atheist.
Do you mean ontology? And “atheism deals with belief” is true of your definition of atheism, but not the other one that I am trying to say is both in use and a valid definition.
“Lack of belief in gods” is a definition that covers all atheists, while “belief that there are no gods” is only true for a subset of all atheists. It’s a bit like defining “christian” as those who believe the Pope is God’s vicar here on Earth.
I have given reasons why this definition is faulty.
That would also fall under the heading of atheists, along with those who simply lack a belief. What all atheists have in common is a lack of belief which is why I think that is the best definition.
Then why can’t they simply talk about that proposition independently of the term “atheist”? Some have coined the term weak and strong atheism to differentiate between the two positions, and I think that is a good middle road.
my emphasis added. No gods is a negative, making it a negative assertion: gods do not exist.
Technically yes. For instance, person can believe in Zeus but not in Odin. Things get fussy it we insist that atheism should imply that no gods exist at all.
It’s worth mentioning Ignosticism, which claims that since we can’t define what a god is in the first place, it’s silly to have an argument about whether or not they exist. They make a good point; until there is a positive assertion about something which has a defined meaning, any two people will always be talking past each other. 
And then there are the Apathists!
I’m one of those. The sort of data I would accept as evidence should not be possible. There are alternative definitions like “God is a concept” which can play a meaningful role in society and culture without requiring physical evidence.
PS: In my experience an a forum moderator in an atheism community, this discussion over just what atheism really means was a frequent topic. There are always people in various states of (dis)belief struggling over meaning, and this is a process they have to work through. In the end “atheism” indicates the lack of a certain type of beliefs. It doesn’t say anything about what a person does believe.
The following essay by PZ Myers was helpful in my decision to focus on that type of person I am in a positive sense, rather than worrying over all those thing I am not.
https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/01/why-are-you-an-atheist
It also covers babies, cats, and rocks. One of the reasons not to use this definition is that it is too broad.
Another reason is that it makes “atheism” and entirely different kind of thing than “theism”. Theism is proposition that can be true or false, and we can talk about its implications and whether there is sufficient reason to believe it. Atheism, under your definition, is not something that can be true or false, or something you can believe or disbelieve, or have evidence for.
Because it gets wearisome saying “strong atheism” every time they want to denote that proposition.
Granted, I’m sure it also gets wearisome to say “weak atheist” every time you want to refer to your own stance (though “non-theist” is not as bad), which is why both definitions will probably continue to be in use.
It is understood that atheism refers to a position taken by humans.
The proposition that someone does not believe in gods is something that is either true or false.
I fully understand why both terms continue to be used, and this is why I am more than willing to patiently explain why I find some definitions to be problematic. I certainly don’t blame people for equating atheism with a belief that there are no gods. Perhaps a better term might be Skeptics instead of non-theist. I could actually see a point where the atheist community has it’s own schism between strong atheists and weak atheists, but that has yet to happen.
The larger problem we run into is that strong atheism is used as a strawman for all atheists. In the same way, it would be a bit like trying to disprove christian theology by showing that the Earth is not young, all the while pretending that Christianity is defined by young Earth creationism. I could probably find “prominent” Christians who say that a Christian has to believe in a literal Genesis, but would that be convincing to you? Probably not.
Of course it is. But then a precise definition has to include that, so that atheism is “the lack of belief in the existence of gods, in a person with the capacity to hold such a belief”. The “strong atheism” definition is actually simpler.
But that is not what someone means when they say “atheism is true” or “atheism is false”.
I agree that this is a problem, and I think in part it arises from confusion by those who are used to thinking about atheism as strong atheism, and applying that to people who self-describe as atheists in the sense of weak atheism. (I.e. it can arise from mistake, not malice.) And the confusion can go the other way, as well: the person might be arguing against strong atheism, using “atheist” to refer to strong atheists, but then mere weak atheists think it applies to themselves and that the person is making a strawman of their position, when that is not what is intended.
I’ve also seen instances (e.g. in debates) where the weak atheism definition is given, it is correctly noted that weak atheism bears no burden of proof - and then “atheism” slides over to the strong atheism side, as if weak atheism’s lack of burden somehow makes strong atheism more justified.
I rather think that everything would be clearer if “atheism/atheist” was reserved for strong atheism, and “non-theism/non-theist” was used for weak atheism.
It is also inaccurate.
That is what atheists mean when they say they are an atheist. Atheism doesn’t make any positive claims, so it isn’t the same as theism on that front. Atheism is simply an answer to the question of whether someone believe in gods or not.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, but I thank you for the kind and fruitful discussion.
“Atheism = belief that gods do not exist” is a perfectly accurate definition in contexts where atheism is being used to mean that, such as Oppy’s book, Draper’s SEP article, most philosophical contexts, any discussion where the question “is atheism true or false?” is being asked, along with most discussions where “does God exist?” or “is theism true?” is being asked.
Conversely, “atheism = lack of belief in gods” is useful in discussions about psychology or sociology (such as “how does atheism affect society”). I am a lot more interested in the answer to “does God exist?” than I am in the answer to “how does atheism affect society”, so I use the definition of atheism that is more useful to me.
Yet my point stands. I suppose you are probably right that most of the time, someone who calls themself an atheist means it in the sense of weak atheism. That doesn’t change the fact that “atheism is true” is a meaningless sentence if weak atheism is intended.
Likewise.
I don’t think he’s right, but you would need data to assess the frequencies of self-applied definitions. I for one lean more toward the “no gods exist” version.
“Christian = young Earth creationist” would also be an accurate definition in the context of a book that argued all Christians are young Earth creationists.
I would argue that it hurts your interests. What you are missing out on is the position that a lack of evidence is not equivalent to disproving a claim. On the question of whether God exists it is extremely important to include weak atheists since they are taking a justifiable epistemological approach to the question that is different from that taken by strong atheists.
I would agree that it is a meaningless statement which is why I think people shouldn’t use it. The question of the truth of theism is what you should be focused on since theism makes a positive claim. What people believe or don’t believe is not necessarily an indication of what is true.
Generally, all sentences of the form “XXXXism is true” are meaningless, because the suffix “-ism” refers to beliefs, not facts.
I’ll just make one comment on this analogy - I don’t want to extend it since it is going into a tangent, and I think we’ve pretty much said what we have to say for the rest of the discussion - but I think this is a bit of a red herring.
I find it pretty unlikely that someone arguing that you have to believe YEC in order to be a true Christian is actually trying to define “Christian” to mean “YEC Christian”. Instead, they intend “Christian” in a more usual sense - meaning someone who appropriately believes in and follows Christ, and who will go to heaven when they die, or something like that - and they argue that you have to believe YEC in order to meet that definition. That would be more a discussion about implications than about definitions.
But you could have a community of people who regularly used the word “Christian” to specifically refer to YEC Christians (suppose they didn’t know any other kinds of Christians existed), and perhaps “Christian = YEC Christian” would be an accurate definition in that context.
Again, thanks for the dialogue.
Let me just refer earlier in this thread… (emphasis added)