Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

At least try to make some kind of sense Willa. Like a complete sentence.

It's not my fault you can't follow a conversation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Deism is not necessarily theistic, but polytheism is. The prefix 'poly' means 'many'.

And theist, by definition, means belief in a single deity (of a particular type, such that e.g., this deity isn't deistic, also by definition). However, for the sake of argument, let's assume (contrary to definition) that polytheists are theists. Deism isn't just defined in contradiction to theism by definition, but from the beginning and up to modern deism exists only as a belief in a single deity that cannot be theistic or atheistic (that is, it was originally used in contradiction to atheism, but quickly became and remains belief in a non-theistic singular god). That is, deists reject the theistic god but believe in a single deity. This rejection of theism by deists has been a defining belief of deists since the 1700s, and your naïve linguistic analysis of atheism as anything not theistic because atheism means "a-theism" fails here, as deism has an equivalent etymology (Latin instead of Greek) and etymologically indicates belief in god, but cannot be equated with theism using such simplistic analyses of language as
1) "A-theism" interpreted to mean a combination of the etymological semantic basis for the prefix plus that for "theism" entails that deists are atheists, despite their monotheistic beliefs (I use monotheistic not just because it is accurate but because it demonstrates the problematic use of naïve linguistics, overly-simplistic etymological analyses, and flawed logic that leads to the notion that "a-theism" must mean "lack of theism").
2) Etymologically, not only do theism and deism come from different languages, surprisingly they don't share even a PIE root (they are etymologically distinct).
3) There is no reason for the word deism other than to refer to belief in god that isn't theistic. To quote the OED: "One who acknowledges the existence of a God upon the testimony of reason, but rejects revealed religion."

So, according to you, at least in that your position is that anybody who isn't a theist is an atheist, deists believe in god and are atheists.

 

[Bunyip]

And theist, by definition, means belief in a single deity (of a particular type, such that e.g., this deity isn't deistic, also by definition).

The word you are looking for is 'MONOthiesm'. If you wish to distinguish between a belief in many God's and a belief in one. Both MONOtheism and POLYtheism are subsets of THEISM.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume (contrary to definition) that polytheists are theists. Deism isn't just defined in contradiction to theism by definition, but from the beginning and up to modern deism exists only as a belief in a single deity that cannot be theistic or atheistic (that is, it was originally used in contradiction to atheism, but quickly became and remains belief in a non-theistic singular god). That is, deists reject the theistic god but believe in a single deity.

Correct, (apart from that deism is not at all incompatible with atheism).Is this a general unsolicited lecture on word meanings? Or will you refer back to the OP at some point?

This rejection of theism by deists has been a defining belief of deists since the 1700s, and your naïve linguistic analysis of atheism as anything not theistic because atheism means "a-theism" fails here, as deism has an equivalent etymology (Latin instead of Greek) and etymologically indicates belief in god, but cannot be equated with theism using such simplistic analyses of language as
1) "A-theism" interpreted to mean a combination of the etymological semantic basis for the prefix plus that for "theism" entails that deists are atheists, despite their monotheistic beliefs (I use monotheistic not just because it is accurate but because it demonstrates the problematic use of naïve linguistics, overly-simplistic etymological analyses, and flawed logic that leads to the notion that "a-theism" must mean "lack of theism").
2) Etymologically, not only do theism and deism come from different languages, surprisingly they don't share even a PIE root (they are etymologically distinct).
3) There is no reason for the word deism other than to refer to belief in god that isn't theistic. To quote the OED: "One who acknowledges the existence of a God upon the testimony of reason, but rejects revealed religion."

You are contradicting your own lecture - DEISM is not necessarily theism. A deist is ATHEIST in relation to Yahweh, and all other THEISTIC Gods.

So, according to you, at least in that your position is that anybody who isn't a theist is an atheist, deists believe in god and are atheists.

Yes, because the deist God is a god in name only - DEISTS are atheist in relation to all theistic Gods.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The word you are looking for is 'MONOthiesm'.

No, because that would imply that "theism" encapsulates both polytheistic and monotheistic beliefs (including deism), and this has never been true. Hence " Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism" (OED).

If you wish to distinguish between a belief in many God's and a belief in one. Both MONOtheism and POLYtheism are subsets of THEISM.

And what defines the set of theists? If you are going to ignore language and linguistics in your argument on lexical meaning in favor of formal systems (sets are mathematical entities, and require a mathematically precise definition), you might at least attempt a formal definition.

Correct, but why are you telling me what I know?

Mainly because you hold that one can believe in god and be an atheist. Even for you that's ridiculous.

Is this a general unsolicited lecture on word meanings?

No, that would involve defining constructions, polysemy, etc. It's an unsolicited critique of a ridiculous position supported by a combination of arbitrary use of particular definitions, the creation of definitions in contradiction to both usage and even dictionary definitions, and misapplication of etymology and logic.

You are contradicting your own lecture - DEISM is not necessarily theism.

It is NECESSARILY not theism. It is defined in contradiction to theism. However, it is also defined in contradiction to atheism, and in fact originated as such.

A deist is ATHEIST in relation to Yahweh

Let's apply your ad hoc method. "Deism" means belief in god, YHWH is a god, ergo belief in YHWH is a deistic position. Alternatively, "theism" is a set that includes monotheists and polytheists for some idiotic reason that prima facie seems to be the root "theism", ergo atheism is a subset of theism.

Better yet, "atheist" means "a-theist" or lack of theistic belief, yet a person can be atheist in relation to particular deities (as a deist is in relation to YHWH), which means that given any god, any theist can be an atheist in relation to that god (the objection that the god needs to be theistic for an individual to be atheistic in relation to that god fails by your own standards as Zeus is a polytheistic god, not a theistic god, but polytheists are a "subset" of theists according to you).

and all other THEISTIC Gods

And (according to you) polytheism is a subset of theism, so what gods aren't theistic? What makes a god a theistic god?

 

[ArtieE]

Would you accept Wikipedia as an authority? There is nothing on the 'Agnostic' page that suggests that the agnostic is ignorant (just as there is nothing on the 'Athiest' page that suggests that).

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especiallymetaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or thesupernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable."

Notice the word "unknown" in the last sentence?

 

[Curious George]

2) Etymologically, not only do theism and deism come from different languages, surprisingly they don't share even a PIE root (they are etymologically distinct).
.

Now I am no linguist. But Greek and Latin are PIE languages. That Greeks had a word theos, and indo Europeans had a word dyeu, sound somewhat similar. And could certainly could be considered from the same language roots. Of course this does not change the history of the word deist, but could you explain the roots, for this assertion.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes,that is exactly what I have been arguing. Artie disagrees.

No I don't. See post 1298. "0-0 Weak atheism (no belief God exists, no belief God doesn't exist)"

leibowde84 said: ↑
"Neither" would still be atheist, as they still lack the belief.

 

[Curious George]

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especiallymetaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or thesupernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable."

Notice the word "unknown" in the last sentence?

The truth claims must be known to determine that the truth or falsity of such a claim is unknown.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, I know. My counter argument is that 'not taking sides' is atheism.

Never said otherwise.

See post 1298. "0-0 Weak atheism (no belief God exists, no belief God doesn't exist)"

 

[Bunyip]

No, because that would imply that "theism" encapsulates both polytheistic and monotheistic beliefs (including deism)

Again, you contradict yourself - no, deism is not a subset of theism. POLY and MONO theism clearly are.Etymology is irrelevant to usage, how you can fail to grasp that I can only imagine.

, and this has never been true. Hence " Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism" (OED).


And what defines the set of theists? If you are going to ignore language and linguistics in your argument on lexical meaning in favor of formal systems (sets are mathematical entities, and require a mathematically precise definition), you might at least attempt a formal definition.

Word meanings are dictated by USAGE Legion. But sure, 'theism' refers to theistic, personal, interventionist gods.

Mainly because you hold that one can believe in god and be an atheist. Even for you that's ridiculous.

If it is not a theistic God, then sure. How is that ridiculous?

No, that would involve defining constructions, polysemy, etc. It's an unsolicited critique of a ridiculous position supported by a combination of arbitrary use of particular definitions, the creation of definitions in contradiction to both usage and even dictionary definitions, and misapplication of etymology and logic.


It is NECESSARILY not theism. It is defined in contradiction to theism. However, it is also defined in contradiction to atheism, and in fact originated as such.

Again, words are defined by USAGE Legion. Etymology/their origins are irrelevant.

Let's apply your ad hoc method. "Deism" means belief in god, YHWH is a god, ergo belief in YHWH is a deistic position.

Not a theistic God Legion. A-THEISM is a reference to THEISTIC Gods.

Alternatively, "theism" is a set that includes monotheists and polytheists for some idiotic reason that prima facie seems to be the root "theism", ergo atheism is a subset of theism.

LOO, that was just gibberish. Atheism is the ABSENCE of theism. Jot a subset of it,- you are being absurd.

Better yet, "atheist" means "a-theist" or lack of theistic belief, yet a person can be atheist in relation to particular deities (as a deist is in relation to YHWH), which means that given any god, any theist can be an atheist in relation to that god (the objection that the god needs to be theistic for an individual to be atheistic in relation to that god fails by your own standards as Zeus is a polytheistic god, not a theistic god, but polytheists are a "subset" of theists according to you).


And (according to you) polytheism is a subset of theism, so what gods aren't theistic? What makes a god a theistic god?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now I am no linguist. But Greek and Latin are PIE languages. That Greeks had a word theos, and indo Europeans had a word dyeu, sound somewhat similar. And could certainly could be considered from the same language roots.

The PIE root of the Latin deus is known, and has been for a long time: "deus from *deos, *deiwas: Skt. devas, Lith. dievas, OPr. deiws..."
Buck, C. D. (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. University of Chicago Press.
Buck's classic is still the standard, but its age required a new treatment which, while less comprehensive and arguably deficient in other ways, provides all the necessary updates: Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Oxford University Press, 1995). The etymology of deus is unchanged except that other cognates are added, but in addition the Greek theos is explicitly stated to be distinct and indeed (unlike the Latin deus) unknown:
"θεός 'god', of uncertain etymology..."
Etymologically, deus is related to the Greek Zeus; see e.g., Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture sect. 8.3.3. The highest Indo-European deity, the sky god (Mouton de Gruyter, 1995).

It is true that even someone familiar with both Greek and Latin might make the mistake of thinking the two are cognates, and in fact Baldi uses these two words as an example of how the application of comparative/historical linguistics which underlies PIE reconstruction and IE studies reveals the problems posed by ignoring the scientific and systematic foundations for PIE reconstruction in favor of apparent, intuitive similarities:
"An example of such differences can be found in approaches to the etymologies of the words for 'god', deus in Latin and θεός in Greek. Despite their close semantic and morphological resemblances, the two words cannot be taken as cognates according to the strict application of the comparative method. Regular sound developments would predict either *feus for Latin or *δεός for Greek if the two were derived from a common etymon."
Baldi, P. (2002). The Foundations of Latin. Mouton de Gruyter.

 

[atanu]

If I reject belief in the existence of God is it fair to say I believe God doesn't exist? What if I say I reject belief in the existence of God and reject the belief that God doesn't exist because I am of the opinion that there's no basis for either belief?

Ha ha. You are of the opinion that there is no basis for either belief? So, you acknowledge that there are two counter 'beliefs'.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Again, you contradict yourself - no, deism is not a subset of theism.

No, because I am not so ignorant of linguistics and language to make ridiculous claims about sets in relation to lexical semantics (also, I know what sets are an am capable of defining them, and thus would never assert something so clearly wrong about sets any more than I would lexemes as you have).

Etymology is irrelevant to usage

Then why do you rely on the semantics of etymological prefixes rather than usage?

Word meanings are dictated by USAGE Legion.

You don't cite corpora (I've done that for you before and you've ignored it), and your claim that deists are atheists in relation to anything contradicts even dictionary definitions and the naïve assumption that these actually define words (or that words have meaning independently of the constructions in which they appear). Even dictionaries don't allow for individuals to be atheist "in relation" to particular gods OR for deists to be atheists (as you do). You don't follow logic, linguistics, usage, or even online dictionaries, but employ both ad hoc methods and idiomatic definitions.

But sure, 'theism' refers to theistic, personal, interventionist gods.

Then polytheism isn't a subset of atheism.

Again, words are defined by USAGE Legion

So find me the usage other than your made-up definitions in which a person can believe in god and be an atheist because they are a deist.

Etymology/their origins are irrelevant.

Reference to "A-THEISM" is a reference to (and reliance upon) etymology.

 

[ArtieE]

Ha ha. You are of the opinion that there is no basis for either belief ? So, you acknowledge that there are two counter 'beliefs'.

Never said otherwise. We call the counter belief "strong atheism". You have dug yourself a hole so deep that you'll never get up.

 

[atanu]

Never said otherwise. We call the counter belief "strong atheism". You have dug yourself a hole so deep that you'll never get up.

Not so fast.

So, according to you, the general definition of atheism 'simply the absence of belief in gods' does not apply to strong atheism? That some belief beyond the 'absence' definition is involved?

 

[ArtieE]

Not so fast.

So, according to you, the general definition of atheism 'simply the absence of belief in gods' does not apply to strong atheism?

Strong atheists have an absence of belief in gods.

That some belief beyond the 'absence' definition is involved?

Strong atheists have an absence of belief in gods and in addition they believe gods don't exist.

1-0 Theism (belief gods exist, no belief gods don't exist)
0-1 Strong atheism (no belief gods exist, belief gods don't exist)
0-0 Weak atheism (no belief gods exist, no belief gods don't exist, undecided)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Strong atheists have an absence of belief in gods and in addition they believe gods don't exist.

This is a physiological impossibility.

 

[ArtieE]

This is a physiological impossibility.

0-1 Strong atheism (no belief gods exist, belief gods don't exist)
0-0 Weak atheism (no belief gods exist, no belief gods don't exist, undecided)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

0-1 Strong atheism (no belief gods exist, belief gods don't exist)
0-0 Weak atheism (no belief gods exist, no belief gods don't exist, undecided)

I didn't say it was impossible to realize linguistically, I said it was physiologically impossible. Even for those who believe that neurophysiology can't, even in theory, tell us what beliefs, opinions, etc., an individual holds, there is no sound basis for denying that conceptual representation requires neural activity. That is, one cannot be capable of using a word like "god" without certain patterns of neural activity, or more generally ANY belief that ANYTHING does or doesn't exist corresponds to neural patterns that CANNOT exist without belief. If one believes no god(s) exist, one CANNOT have "no belief gods don't exist" or "lack a belief that god(s) exist".

 

[ArtieE]

If one believes no god(s) exist, one CANNOT have "no belief gods don't exist"

Correct. Never said you could.

or "lack a belief that god(s) exist".

Yes you can.