The American Heritage Dictionary - “atheism.”

you do, after all, deny the existence of God(s)...I wonder where the "immoral" part came from beyond popular perception of athiests. Maybe it was used as a synonym for immorality in older literature. Often old meanings stick around in dictionaries.

"Deny" implies that something really is true and you are acting as if it isn't. That's not the exact technical definition of the word but it is the connotation it has developed.

I feel what your saying. I'll bet you ten dollars to one the connotation came from the phrase "denial is the first step" (like with alcholism)

then atheism has also developed a connotation of meaning immorality.
I'm not saying that I view atheism as being immoral though. In fact I think that atheism can be quite moral -- Camus' existentialism would be an example.
If you are going to allow your connotation of denial to determine whether the word should be used in the definition, then you should allow others' connotation of atheism to be used in a definition.
The reason there is more than one definition of a word in a dictionary is because there is more than one use/meaning of the word in the language.
It seems kind of silly to me to want to impose your individual's meaning of a word on the word as a whole in the language.
I don't agree with the definition a lot of people use for the word "hippie" but I'm not going to write any letters complaining if that is the way the word gets defined in a dictionary.
Not only does it seem kind of silly to make such a move, it also strikes me as sanctimonious, pedantic, and even in a way a veer towards the type of fundamentalism that some atheists and agnostics object to in the religious.

Well my connotation (any that of many other people in the world) of the word religious is that of ignorant and incapable of critical thought. How would you like to see that included in the American Heritage definition? "Immoral", if it is to be included, should at least have mention made that it is a disparaging interpretation of the word atheist.

but it wouldn't bother me.

I wrote "If you are going to allow your connotation of denial to determine whether the word should be used in the definition, then you should allow others' connotation of atheism to be used in a definition."

If there is a general sense of the word religious meaning that in the language among many users, then it should be in the dictionary.
Works both ways, like I already indicated.

But can you imagine the reaction of the scores of poor, martyred, persecuted, Christians in this country? These poor souls are already dealing with the vicious and unrelenting secular librul attack on Christmas. Being demeaned in a dictionary definition would surely push them over the edge! ;)

... they read the dictionary.

They'd learn about it from Pat on the 700 Club.

Disbelief or denial is what it says - reflecting strong and weak atheism.

Disbelief, being the weak atheist position of merely lacking belief in the existence of a god or gods. Denial being the strong athteist position of actively arguing that there is no god as a matter of provable course.

Which is why so many fundamentalists use that definition.

We don't lack belief, we DENY their almighty god thing.

Three guesses who wrote the definition and the first two don't count.


For the people who think it's "no big deal", think again.

This is what they did to the word "feminist" and what they're doing to the word "liberal".

I refuse to let them force me to redefine myself using their rules.

I am an atheist, a feminist and a liberal.

And damned proud to be all three.

If you consider the various usages of the word "denial", it should be clear that the AmHeritage definition of atheism is dangerously vague and potentially misleading. Denial can be used as "a refusal to acknowledge a truth". Furthermore, many atheists assert that knowledge about the existence of or number of god/s simply does not exist.

Acknowledged above. But you could explain the last sentence in your post above? I don't understand it.

Most atheists, however, do.

As greyl explained, "denial" definitely carries the connotation that we think a god exists, and we actively deny him so we can live our wicked life of immorality.

This certainly fits what was probably a middle ages concept of atheism, and of course carries over to today in certain people whose minds are still in the middle ages.

"As greyl explained, "denial" definitely carries the connotation that we think a god exists, and we actively deny him so we can live our wicked life of immorality. This certainly fits what was probably a middle ages concept of atheism, and of course carries over to today in certain people whose minds are still in the middle ages."

Defining "Denial of God" as atheism certainly sounds like a middle ages viewpoint. However, Atheism as defined as "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods" existed at least since the early Greeks.

:-)

:toast:

:-)

You might also agree that before the mothers and fathers of our culture began the process of intellectualizing and scribing descriptions of god/s, no matter how poetic or rational, all of humanity were likely the most pious and atheistic creatures at once. Plainly, they were at home with, and curious about, the workings of the universe.

Poetically: Without holding naive or superstitious beliefs, they lived in the hands of the gods.*




*several hundred thousand of "those" people still live.

towards anything non-xian, including atheists, pagans, wiccans, druids, buddhists and so on.

most people don't even really get how much this is true. Most dictionaries do not even go into a discussion of where "yule" even comes from. Most (including the biggies) just say it is another word for xmas. Yikes.

HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS
Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933*

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.


Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
* Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association—© 2003 American Humanist Association

More:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

Somebody stop us secular humanists before we...we...make the world a better place or something!! ;)

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist?

It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism.

Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day)

An earlier letter, from 1789, shows Jefferson using "atheism" as a virtual synonym for "wicked"--though he did so to make a pretty funny point, IMO:

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians."

(Letter to Richard Price from Paris, January 8, 1789. (Price had said, "There has been in almost all religions a melancholy separation of religion from morality." Surely Jefferson is using the word atheism as a synonym for wickedness or immorality; this was a common and accepted usage of the word 200 years ago.-- Cliff Walker))

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefferson.htm

P.S. Jefferson references the French revolutionary, writer and atheist Denis Diderot. AFAIK, Diderot was the original author of a famous quote often attributed to other godless troublemakers: "Humanity will only be free when the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest."