Atheism:
- from the Greek atheos, without God.
(a~not + theos~God)

Without a belief in the the existence of a God.

Trav,

Is the AFA definition as ‘absurd’ as some of those in dictionaries using the ‘belief’ word and its derivatives? I notice you have made a point to have a shot at the AFA and not them. That you say the AFA definition is ‘absurd’ does not make is so especially as you go on to miss some vital factors. I’ll assume it was not intentional.

The vast mass of religious folk believe in their particular god because of writings, (Bible, Koran, Vedas etc) tradition and culture. The proof of this is that each culture has a variation on the god theme with some god/gods or supernatural themes not believed in other cultures.

The AFA has two parts to its definition and you failed to state in context the second. People mentioned above are covered by the AFA definition with no “factually reliable evidence”.

Yahweh/Jesus does not spring to mind by revelation. That is a nonsense to suggest.

A person on an island with no contact with the outside world and poor understanding of science and the natural world, may believe in a supernatural part to life but if that person was on an island where education levels were very high and religious indoctrination, very low, they would be less inclined to believe in the god of their culture or the supernatural.

The AFA definition is one that not all have to follow. It is only the AFA definition and it is there for a purpose.

Is it too much to expect proper reasoning to not accept the AFA definition and really, who cares how the AFA defines Atheism?

David

weareunique
When any information not supported by empirical evidence is presented to children that information probably involves indoctrination. At least it is authoritarian.

Non-theists, a term which makes more sense that 'atheist', because the prefix "a" means against, tend to encourage their children to be questioning and to answer a child's question with adequately supported accepted wisdom or with what the choices are on a particular matter. In effect they are not dogmatic.

In view of your comments on the ethics classes concept you may be interested in reading the report on the Clackmannanshire Trial now available at
http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/Clackmannan.doc

David, people may believe that the words of the Bible are true, but this does not mean that they believe in God purely because of the words of the Bible. Belief is a complex thing, and belief is formed because of many different factors. Many of the things which help form people's beliefs cannot necessarily be categorised or debated in terms of "factually reliable" evidence or "scientific evidence".

Anyway, you're welcome to use any definition of atheism you like- I'm not telling you what definition to use. I'm saying that if you use a definition for atheism which is compatible with someone believing in theism then it's a poor definition.

Regarding your comment that "It is only the AFA definition and it is there for a purpose", well it may serve your purposes and that's fine, but it is not a rational definition, and if you believe it is then I'd invite you to show how, by showing how it's incompatible with theism.

Furthermore if you are interested in pursuing truth rather than serving your purposes, then why don't you use a definition which makes more sense? Am I to take your comment as an implicit admission that the AFA is more interested in persuading people than pursuing the truth through rationality? If so, that's fine but I'd find it a very interesting admission in light of your belief that atheism is the rational position and that theism is irrational.

Trav,

I’m finding it difficult to believe you actually wrote that post. Did you read it before pressing to upload?

I have explained the point to you but I’ll do it again.

“ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural”

Religions depend on historical stories to support the god hypothesis, which is contained in the historical stories. It is called a circular argument

The AFA definition says no such evidence, scientific or historical is accepted as credible evidence universally. Or, there would be one religion or none.

The god hypothesis does not spring into peoples mind without historical books and cultural indoctrination etc.

This is very simple stuff and I’m finding it difficult to believe you are trying to make a genuine case.

Anyhow, how about you give a definition of Atheism and I will let the AFA Committee of Management have a look at it to see if it is suitable for our use.

Don’t direct me to dictionaries, I want you to supply a definition that all Atheists would accept. Now, how hard could that be?

David

David, there have been studies which have shown that children automatically attribute teleogical explanations for things. That is, they see design and a designer in everything. Developmental psychologists have interpreted this as evidence that supernatural belief is in some way innate and that it's been a part of our evolution. A plausible explanation from a religious point of view is that God has planted a natural belief mechanism in us. But regardless of your interpretation, the evidence shows that children do see design before being told about religion and before being culturally indoctrinated to believe that the world's designed.

Also, there have been cases of people who have been culturally indoctrinated against Christianity, for example, but who have had dreams and visions with Christian themes and then become Christians.

The philosophy of scientific naturalism doesn't usually spring into people's minds without having someone tell them about the idea and without books and study. Does this mean that no-one should believe in scientific naturalism?

Regarding the definition, look at a few philosophy of religion books, or articles and websites from people in that field (ie: Books written by experts who debate the definitions of atheism and theism) and I doubt you'd find any definitions similar to yours. A definition should define what people believe, not what evidence there is for their belief.

My proposal is one that most atheists don't accept- I believe the clearest method of defining people's beliefs is as follows- God exists (theism), God might exist (agnosticism) and God doesn't exist (atheism). So atheism would be "The belief that God does not exist". I've seen objections to this categorisation but I believe it's better because it avoids unnecessary confusion. Plenty of atheists prefer to simply be defined as "lacking a belief in God", which would include agnosticism under my three-way system. This, in my view is too open ended because it would include people with vastly different beliefs, thus a clearer categorisation includes all three I mentioned earlier. However I do think it's still clearer and better than the AFA's as it avoids irrelevant discussions about evidence etc.