Redefining "Atheist"

I recently wrote to Merriam-Webster concerning their definition of "atheist." As it stands now, the definition of "atheist" on their Web site, webster.com, is "one who believes that there is no deity." I happen to think this definition is incorrect. The wording of my definition is only slightly different, but the difference is huge in terms of the meaning. I define "atheist" as "someone who does not believe in a deity."

So, what's the difference? The difference is that Webster's current definition implies that a person actively chooses to believe something. Atheism is not a belief system. It is instead the lack of a belief system. It requires no action.

Anyone who does not believe in a deity is an atheist. This includes new born babies and people who have had no exposure the concept of deities. New born babies are atheists because they are not capable of understanding the notion of deities, let alone believe in any. It would not be accurate to say that they believe that deities do not exist. Yet, they are atheists.

Even the agnostic individual, who does not think it is possible to prove whether or not deities exist, would be an atheist. Why? Because that person cannot say "I believe that deities exist."

What about the tribes of people who exist in the most remote parts of the world who have never been exposed to the notion of deities? As with babies, you cannot say that they believe that deities do not exist. They have no concept of deities in the first place to believe they don't exist. They simply do not believe in the existence of deities.

To say that someone believes that no deities exist is to impose the act of rejection on the individual in question. Albeit, there are atheists who do actively reject the notion. However, that is not definitive of the word. That is more of a characteristic that certain atheists possess. But, not all have this characteristic.

Hopefully, we will see a change in the definition. I, for one, think it is important distinction in understanding the nature of religion and how people are affected by it. We shall see.

I will leave you with the response I received from Kory Stamper, Associate Editor at Merriam-Webster, Inc. Here it is:

Thank you for your message. A handful of other readers have also
written us about this, and we've been making careful note of all such comments
for review by our editors during the preparation of future editions.

Copyright 2008 Trina Hoaks

In God We Trust? Who is We?

“In God We Trust” is the state motto of Florida. The Bill making it so was signed by Jeb Bush in 2006. How is it that in a country founded to ensure that the government makes no laws, etc. favoring any religion allows a state to have in its motto, the word “God?” I guess if it’s good enough for the nation, it’s good enough for Florida.

How can it be that our national motto and the motto of the state of Florida is “In God We Trust?” In my estimation, that is showing favoritism. This country was not founded as a religious country. In fact, many of our founding fathers were atheist and agnostic. However, not even 200 years after the founding of this country, in our fervor to prove ourselves superior to any other country, we decided to make ourselves known as favored by God by adding the phrase “one nation under God” to our pledge. Soon after, we adopted it as our National motto. Even if there were a God, how arrogant do you have to be to make such an assumption?

It comes as no surprise that Governor Jeb Bush would pass the Bill allowing this to become the official state motto. If George Bush doesn’t understand the principles upon which this country was founded, why would Jeb? Who can forget the day, back in 1987, when George W. Bush, while campaigning for the presidency, was interviewed by Robert Sherman of the American Atheist? Sherman said to Bush “Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists.” Bush responded by saying “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

There are many American citizens who would whole-heartedly disagree with this. It isn’t just atheists either. There are several people who hold religious beliefs who do not believe in God. The state of Florida and our country need to seriously consider remembering the ideals upon which this country was founded. One of the most important of which was “separation of church and state.”

Copyright 2008 Trina Hoaks



Bookmark this on Delicious

If Atheists Lack Morals, Why Aren’t There More of Them in Prison?

There are those Christians who attest that atheists lack morals. They seem to think that Christianity corners the market on morality. They will even go so far as to accuse us of being Satanists. I don’t know which of the two contentions is the most absurd. To lay one to rest is quite easy. If we don’t believe in God, it stands to reason that we don’t believe in Satan. We cannot be followers of “someone” in whom we do not believe. Laying the other one to rest can be a bit more tedious.

Atheists can and do have morals just as much as a Christian can and do, if not more so. Christians claim that being “good” is a means to an end. That is their ticket into Heaven. They will often ask me “if you don’t believe in Heaven, what motivates you to be good?” Of course, I can never resist answering that question with a question of my own: “Do you mean to say that if it weren’t for God you would be a bad person?” They typically don’t know how to respond to this. They don’t seem to understand that there are sociological reasons, reasons that seem more pure to me, for behaving in a moral way. It has nothing to do with bribery (which the Christian notion seems to me to be about). It makes it false; a lie, thereby, not really moral at all.

Because “morality” can be a subjective concept, I will direct your attention to the most consistent measure of morality that I can think of: laws. Our society places a great deal of importance on the “law.” Laws are what allow our society to keep order. Many of the laws that exist are based on moral standards. With this as our defining criteria, we can use lawbreakers as our examples. Or at the very least, we can look at those individuals who have been caught and convicted of breaking the law.

So if we are to use lawbreakers to illustrate the difference of morality between atheists and theists, perhaps it is best to consider the prison population relative to the population at large. The prison population may be the best way we have of measuring morality. After all, actions speak louder than words. We can all claim to be moral; that doesn’t make it so.
It is estimated that in the Unites States, one percent of all prisoners are atheist. What does this mean? It only means what it says, that one percent of prisoners are atheists. However, when we contrast this to the United States population at large that is when this low percentage makes an impression.

It is reported that between 8 and 12% of Americans are atheist. Compare that to the 1% of prisoners who are atheist. Regardless of which percentage you choose to embrace, 8% or 12%, the difference is staggering. We would expect to see a gap in the opposite direction were it true that atheists were less moral as a whole. As it stands, though, these figures seem contrary to the popular held belief that atheists aren’t moral.

If there were no difference between the two groups, religious and non religious, you would expect the percentages of the prison population to more closely mirror the population of those who are not imprisoned. But, that just isn’t the case. It would seem, following our established reasoning here, that not only do atheists have morals but that they are considerably more moralistic than theists.


Copyright 2008 Trina Hoaks



Bookmark this on Delicious

Religious Bullying

It was reported a couple of days ago that Sony has postponed the release of one of their new games to appease the Muslim community. Why? The bottom line, I suppose, is money. When will people finally stand up and do what they want as long as they aren't causing any harm to anyone.The complaint?

The game LittleBigPlanet for PS3 reportedly had in one of its background songs two quotes from the Qur'an. According to many Muslims, it is offensive to mix scripture and music. I could understand someone being peeved over hate language or the like, but this, in my estimation, is unreasonable.The delay is the result of Sony using the time to expunge the "offensive" material from the game.

He we go again - bowing down to religious groups and letting them dictate our lives and decisions. I get so frustrated by this type of strong-arm tactics.Of course, this doesn't peeve me as much as how peeved I was back in January when MySpace shut down the largest Atheist group on MySpace that had over 35,000 friends simply because some MySpace Christians protested.


Copyright 2008 Trina Hoaks



Bookmark this on Delicious