For those having difficulty agreeing with someone on how to define Atheism, I suggest 7 obstacles you may need to overcome in order to have a fruitful discussion.
(1) Dialogue Purpose
You might start by trying to agree on the purpose of your dialogue. Often it is best to put agendas up front instead of waiting for horns to lock after wasted hours of discussion due to fixed and incompatible goals.
(2) Philosophy of Language
You may need to agree on the nature of language and definitions. You may have to skip this one and just hope it is not an issue. But contradictory positions could stall a dialogue. For some people see language as rigid and others as constantly changing. Some see the meaning of words as something to be discovered and others as contractual agreements. Some see language in a reductionistic, algorithmic manner while others see language as a organic web of interconnected beliefs and feelings in our minds.
(3) Definitions:
Next, the debators need to acknowledge that words have multiple definitions and that to avoid the Equivocation Fallacy entering the discussion, they need to agree on one of the usages or construct another. Below are the three common definitions of the word “Atheism”
A. not believing in any god. not believing in Theism.
—–AKA: “weak atheism” or “implicit” atheism
B. believing “no god(s) exist” or explicitly denying the existence of any gods
—–AKA: “strong atheism” or “explicit” atheism
C. Godlessness (Websters International Dictionary 1903) Godlessness in life or conduct. Called also practical atheism (Funk & Wagnalls, 1895)
But deciding on a definition may be difficult without addressing these last three obstacles:
(4) Admitting Historical Nuances
You need to agree that historically, “atheist” had definition # 3 and still has a huge percent of that connotation for many people. Thus people may be hesitant to self-identify as Atheist because of all this baggage.
(5) Defining “God”
Both parties should agree on what is meant by “God”. For certainly, the argument changes if one person means a deist god and another means a intervening, personal god, or perhaps an impersonal, divine principle etc…
(6) Defining “Belief“
Both parties should agree on what is meant by “Belief”. For instance, is the belief intentional (active) or is it default result of not thinking (passive)? Further, how do degrees of certainty play in the definition? For this reason, for example, some use the word agnostic as an adjective to describe both theists and atheists.
Readers can see that the permutations entailed by these obstacles explain why pages and pages of books and blogs discuss this issue. My hope has not been to define Atheism but to offer a method to discuss the issue. Also, Wiki has a great article on the definition of “Atheism”. I hope this post illustrates how words are tools created by explicit or implicit contractual agreements between two speakers. Oooops, I just gave away my philosophy of language.
_______________________________________
Addendum Examples:
After writing this, I realized that maybe a few examples would help. So, imagine these folks with whom I have different relationships and thus with whom I agree to use these words a bit differently.
My Mahayana Buddhist Buddy
He thinks of “God” as being the “Luminous Mind” in Buddhism –pabhassara citta. “Belief” for him, is a skillful means–upaya. So, when speaking to some people, he has no trouble telling them “I believe in God”. For he certainly does not want them walking away thinking his family is “godless” in their values and behaviors. And he wants them to see his rather mystical side so as to further dialogue potential.
My University Professor Friend
The head of the Biology department is a Creationist. Yet this Professor does not yet have tenure and a group of his religious students have reported my friend to the Creationist department chair complaining that he teaches evolution without a God. My friend is confronted by the department chair. My friend wants to be honest so he says, “Well, I am an agnostic Atheist but I respect those who feel their may be a God, for I too leave room for uncertainty. I certainly feel even God could work through evolution.”
My Atheist Pal
He has several Republican Christian friends who have invited him to their Churches or invited his kids to their summer Bible camps. He decided that he only wants to keep friends who truly understand him. So he tells them in no uncertain terms he does not believe in an all-powerful, anthropocentric, Israel-favoring, damning deity who is only pleased by blood sacrifice and correct belief. He says “I am an Atheist without a touch of Agnostic in me. No, my kids said they don’t want to go to your camp either. Do you still want to grab a beer?”.
BTW, all three of those guys are/were me. See my “Many Selves, No Self” post for clarity. Hope that helps.
_________________
Related Post:
1) Atheism: an epiphenomenon
2) A.K.A. Atheism: The pros and cons for other names for “Atheists”
2) Cat vs. Monkey Religions: Different ways of understanding “God”
3) What are Beliefs